Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about: The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable) and “using an answer key is ac

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about:

The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable)

and “using an answer key is acceptable if the exam is extremely difficult” (Being the dependent Variable)

Must be in APA 7th edition format

MINIMUM 2 pages. (Not including reference page & title page) INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED.

-I have also attached my whole research paper for background on topic. Only do “Study 2” lit review, nothing else 🙂

Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about: The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable) and “using an answer key is ac
REVIEW ARTICLE Adults ’Dispositional and Situational Perspective-Taking: a Systematic Review Anett Wolgast 1 &Nancy Tandler 2&Laura Harrison 3&Sören Umlauft 1 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Social perspective-taking is a multifaceted skill set, involving the disposition, motivation, and contextual attempts to consider and understand other individuals. It is essential for appropriate behavior in teaching contexts and social life that has been investigated across various research traditions . Because social perspectiv e-taking enables flexible reappraisals of social situations, it can facilitate more harmonious social interactions. We aimed to systematically review the disparate literature focusing on adults ’social perspective-taking to answer the overarching question: Are there findings on factors that positively or negatively related to adults ’social perspective-taking as possible protective factor for mental health? Specific questions were which internal or external factors are related to either dispositional or situation-specific social perspective-taking and are both forms related to each other, or do they vary independently of each other in response to these factors? We reviewed 92 studies published in 56 articles in last ten years including 213,095 healthy adults to answer these questions. The findings suggested several factors (e.g., gender, perceived social interactions) related to the dispositional form. Negative relationships to self-reported or tested (cortisol levels) distress suggested dispositional social perspective-taking as a protective factor for mental health. Dispositional social perspective-taking related to the situational form and some findings suggested changes in both forms through intervention. Thus, coordinating different perspectives on oneself or others reflects flexibility in behavior re lated to positive social and mental health outcomes. Keywords Systematic review . Social perspective-taking . Disposition . Healthy adults . Empathy Adults need to see and understand others ’perspectives in order to make socially and professionally appropriate responses within group contexts (e.g., Gehlbach 2004 ). Health Educational Psychology Review https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09507-y Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019- 09507-y ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Anett Wolgast [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article (2020)32:353–389 Published online: 14 December 2019 research findings suggest self-reported low levels of distress to be related to the tendency to understand others ’perspectives in diverse social situations (see Wilkinson et al. 2017 for a review). For example, teaching is a special context that involves diverse group situations, raising the question of whether dispositional or situational factors are related to adults ’social perspective-taking in teaching situations. Educational research findings indicate that some teachers appear to consider and support students similar to themselves to a greater extent (Gehlbach et al. 2016 ), while other teachers neglect to consider students ’learning prerequi- sites, such as beliefs about skills or depressive mood (e.g., Bilz 2014 ). These teachers appear to focus on themselves rather than on their students; they do not attempt to see what their students see. We assumed that teachers ’seeing and understanding students ’perspectives may play a key role in considering students and their learning prerequisites. Our aim was to find evident factors which explain high levels or low levels of seeing and understanding others ’perspec- tives for new approaches in teacher education and teacher training. Seeing what other people see basically involves a skill set (e.g., Erle and Topolinski 2015 , 2017 ; Hegarty and Waller 2004 ) related to visuo-spatial perspective-taking that is activated in a social situation or context (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ). Social perspective-taking, broadly defined, allows us to represent another ’s mental perspective and helps us to understand another individual ’s behavior (e.g., Davis 1983 ). In the narrower sense, social perspective-taking involves both seeing a target person ’s circumstantial point of view and being motivated to discern the target ’s thoughts, motivations, and feelings in order to make accurate inferences about their perspective (Gehlbach and Brinkworth 2012 ;Zaki 2014 ). Motivation and willing- ness are necessary to discern available sources of evidence (e.g., using information about the target, conversation contents, or eye movements, Gehlbach and Brinkworth 2012 )forsocial perspective-taking and to use underlying skills (e.g., mentalizing, Engen and Singer 2012 ; mental self-rotation, Erle and Topolinski 2017 ) for accurate assumptions about the target. Research on social perspective-taking encompasses a number of different conceptual and theoretical as well as methodological approaches. Within the social perspective-taking litera- ture, primarily, two approaches are employed and relate to different conceptual aspects of perspective-taking: (1) Social perspective-taking as disposition, the tendency to imagine another ’s perspective and circumstances, ac ross various contexts (e.g., Davis 1983 ; Mooradian et al. 2011 ), further referred to as dispositional .Davis( 1980 ) and other researchers have described it as the cognitive dimension of empathy (e.g., Mattan et al. 2016 ). This dispositional social perspective-taking is often measured using a standardized inventory (e.g., Davis 1980 ). (2) Social perspective-taking assessed using photo, animation, or video-based tasks (e.g., Erle and Topolinski 2017 ; Gehlbach et al. 2012c ), further referred to as situational , reflects current capacities in a specific social situation. These cognitive capacities are often assessed in experiments using various terminologies and paradigms to simulate specific social situations which require executing social perspective-taking (e.g., Ames 2004a ,b;Amesetal. 2008 ,2010 ; Epley et al. 2006 ;Pierceetal. 2013 ;Sassenrathetal. 2016 ). Both the dispositional and situational performance per definition imply perspective-taking with reference to a human(-like) or social target (e.g., Deroualle et al. 2015 ). Situational social perspective-taking deals with the cognitive capacity to establish and flexibly modify a mental representation of another person ’s perspective and circumstances. This mentalizing can be done remaining fixedly anchored in oneself , thus putting oneself in the shoes of another person and her circumstances ( What would I think or do in that situation? ), or simply execute projection or stereotyping (e.g., Ames 2004a ; Gehlbach and Brinkworth 2012 ; Gehlbach and Vriesema 2019 ; see also Batson et al. 1997 ; Epley et al. 2004 ;Mattanetal. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 354 2016 ). However, the further capacity to imagine the other person ’s self and her circumstances as if one was this person requires a flexible self-anchoring (When I was this person, what would I think or do? e.g., Batson et al. 1997 ;Mattanetal. 2016 ). This mentalizing, in turn, may help us to regulate our emotional responses (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ) within positively experienced social interactions and negatively experienced conflict situations. Interestingly, high levels of dispositional or (experimentally induced) tested physiological distress are related to deficits in social perspective-taking in individuals (e.g., Batson et al. 1997 ; Buffone et al. 2017 ;Lammetal. 2007 ). Distress in these contexts is induced with stimuli which trigger negative emotional responses in an individual. Indeed, a chronic state of distress in terms of a chronic imbalance between requirements and protective factors for mental health might also be related to deficits in social perspective-taking levels. An investigation of the relationship between self-reported distress, social perspective-taking, and any mitigating factors is timely, given Americans ’dispositional social perspective-taking decreased signifi- cantly in 2010 compared to 1979 and 2000 (Konrath et al. 2011 ), as indexed by scores from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis 1980 ), a commonly used dispositional social perspective-taking scale. Since we were interested in factors that are positively or negatively related to adults ’dispositional or situational social perspective-taking, we focused on research that social perspective-taking included as correlate (nondirected relations) or dependent variable. Engen and Singer ( 2012 ) proposed a core network model of empathy including perspective-taking that we used as template for an extended integrating framework (see Fig. 1 ). The core network model of empathy is outlined in the next section. Drawing upon this model (Engen and Singer 2012 ), we aimed to demonstrate a proof of concept for this model by systematically reviewing both correlational and experimental behavioral findings on disposi- tional and situational social perspective-taking. Theoretical Approaches on Social Perspective-Taking Examples of prominent theoretical approaches to the social perspective-taking construct are the Piagetian theory; the concept of theory of mind; social coordination after Selman ( 1980 ); or perspective-taking as a dispositional tendency exhibited across various situations (Davis Appraisal generation Mentalizing (i.e., imagery perspective, cognitive representations, flexible mental model) Contextual appraisal (perceived context, beliefs about other ‘s affective state) Characteristics of oneself (e.g., gender, mood, personality, motivation, dispositional perspective- taking) (Cooperative) Relationship between oneself and a target-individual (evaluation of other, affective link, similarity) Affect generation Features of other ‘s emotional state (valence, intensity, salience) Self, anchored in oneself Perceived human(-like) target Social perspective-taking as cognitive dimension of empathy States of oneself (e.g., health, too less/much sleep, distress) Contextual conditions (e.g., time pressure, concurrent tasks, distress) Cognitive processing 1(e.g., mental rotation, shifting, information from memory) Fig. 1 Integrated framework of social-perspective-taking (based on Duran and Dale 2014 ; Engen and Singer 2012 ; Epley et al. 2004 ; Gehlbach 2010 ,2011 ; Johnson and Johnson 2005 ; Libby and Eibach 2011 ).1Working memory (e.g., Meyer and Lieberman 2016 ) and executive functions are probably involved in executing social perspective-taking (e.g., Ruby and Decety 2003) EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 355 1980 ). The ability to step outside oneself and assume others ’points of view is a cognitive capacity crucial to the development of the self and cognitive skills through interactions (Mead 1934 ). Social interactions and cognitive development are linked to the emergence of formal operations, including the capacity to engage in making assumptions and deductive reasoning, logical reasoning, and construing reality from various possibilities (Piaget and Cook 1952 ). This skill set has been seen as fundamental to perceiving oneself and others and adequately interpreting social interactions and relationships (Brown 1986 ; Fischer 1980 ; Lewis and Brooks-Gunn 1979 ). Selman ( 1980 ) proposed a developmental view on situational social perspective-taking. He defined social perspective-taking in children and adults as coordinating two or more perspec- tives (e.g., oneself and another ’s, or oneself and others ’intentions, Selman 1980 ). Social perspective-taking in terms of mind reading is conceptualized within the cognitive develop- mental framework of theory of mind (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al. 1985 ; Bukowski and Samson 2015 ; Converse et al. 2008 ; Schneider et al. 2012 ;Toddetal. 2015 ; Wimmer and Perner 1983 ). Theory-of-mind research largely focuses on the development of the ability to distin- guish between oneself and other individuals (e.g., desires, beliefs) in children, changes over time in children and adolescents (e.g., Derksen et al. 2018 ; Milligan et al. 2007 ), and cultural variation (e.g., Lillard 1998 ). False-belief tasks are a prominent method for examining (the development of) young children ’s (e.g., the famous Sally-Anne task), adolescent ’s, or adult ’s theory of mind (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al. 1985 ; Derksen et al. 2018 ). The term perspective-taking is mentioned in syntheses of theory of mind research from 2006 and 2007 (e.g., Milligan et al. 2007 ; Rao et al. 2007 ;Singer 2006 ). Then, Singer ( 2006 , p. 856) proposed to differentiate the concepts “theory of mind, ”“ emotional empathy, ”and “ perspective taking. ”In accordance with that proposal, having the ability to distinguish between oneself and another ’s mental perspective (i.e., theory of mind) is in our view a prerequisite for social perspective-taking instead of a synonym for the same. While a shared history has resulted in both conceptual and methodological overlaps between the social perspective-taking and theory of mind research traditions, future research should better disentangle these two constructs conceptually and empirically. Thus, theory-of-mind research per se is outside the scope of this systematic review in which we aimed to provide an overview of research on social perspective-taking specifically. Accordingly, given the overlap in usage of terms prior to Singer ’s2006 proposal, we only included research on adults ’social perspective-taking from last 10 years in our PROSPERO pre-registration protocol. Research beyond that point is more selective for social perspective-taking independent of theory of mind; indeed, two recent syntheses on theory of mind (Schaafsma et al. 2016 ; Derksen et al. 2018 ) do not even mention the term perspective-taking. Both developmental approaches are consistent in that they assume that perspective-taking is a cognitive capacity that children learn but use differently in different contexts. Thus, adults who have normally developed this cognitive capacity are able to use social perspective-taking appropriately in a given social context (e.g., Bloom and German 2000 ; Epley et al. 2004 ; German and Hehman 2006 ) without instruction (e.g., Eyal et al. 2018 ). However, these approaches do not explain adults ’such as teachers ’intraindividual and interindividual differ- ences in social perspective-taking. A comprehensive approach relating to individual dispositions and situational social perspective-taking is based on literature reviews and meta-analytic results (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ;Lammetal. 2011 ). It is the core network of empathy model that explains intra- and interindividual differences in empathic responses by the role of establishing a mental EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 356 representation of the target individual based on perception (Engen and Singer 2012 ; Libby and Eibach 2011 ), modulation, and regulation (Engen and Singer 2012 ). Modulational factors are one ’s own characteristics or dispositions (e.g., dispositional social perspective-taking, Gehlbach 2010 ,2011 ; gender, mood, or personality traits, Engen and Singer 2012 ; see also Borkenau, and Tandler 2015 for an overview), features of the target, the relationship between oneself and the target individual (Engen and Singer 2012 ; see also Davis 2018 for similarity), and features of the other ’s state (i.e., valence, intensity and salience, Engen and Singer 2012 ; see Fig. 1). Factors assigned to regulation are contextual appraisal of the perceived situation, affect, and social perspective-taking (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ; Libby and Eibach 2011 ). Briefly, the core network model of empathy summarizes the networks and factors involved in mentalizing, action simulation by information of a target person in a given context, and cognitive processes for emotion regulation (Engen and Singer 2012 ; Libby and Eibach 2011 ). Intraindividual emotion regulation (e.g., Webb et al. 2012 ) is known to be a resource for dealing with subjectively challenging situations, preventing states of distress, and protecting health. Evidence from Previous Research Social perspective-taking with a focus on the target person has been related to beneficial effects on cardiovascular health (e.g., Buffone et al. 2017 ). Underwood and Moore ( 1982 ) reviewed the existing literature on the mediating role of perspective-taking forms (e.g., social vs. visuo- spatial) on the development of altruism in children and adults. Their meta-analytic results showed gender differences based on the method of testing. For example, social perspective- taking differed between men and women (with women having an advantage) when self-report measures were used but there was no difference when physiological measures or covert observation were used (e.g., Eisenberg and Lennon 1983 ). Thus, gender is a relevant factor for dispositional social perspective-taking. Davis ( 1980 ) proposed social perspective-taking as one dimension of the multidimen- sional construct of empathy beside empathic concern, fantasy, and personal distress. Considering Davis ’work, Gehlbach (e.g., 2004 ) conceptualized and investigated social perspective-taking as a multidimensional construct including the main two dimensions: (1) ability measured by accuracy in reading another person ’s thoughts and feelings, and (2) motivation (i.e., is one motivated to try to read someone else ’s thoughts and feelings in the first place, Gehlbach 2004 ). The motivation dimension can be further distinguished with respect to one ’s motivation to engage in a particular social-perspective-taking episode vs. one ’s motivation to engage in soci al perspective-taking acro ss situations. The latter represents dispositional social perspective-ta king or social-perspective-taking propensity (Gehlbach 2004 ). Moreover, Chambers and Davis ( 2012 ) described an ease of self-simulation heuristic for dispositional and situational social perspective-taking. They assumed that differences in adults ’ situational social perspective-taking might be explained by whether it takes more or less effort to mentalize about the target ’s mind or to see what a target person sees: Situational social perspective-taking is more likely when self-simulation is easier, e.g., when similarities with the target person are perceived. As they predicted, high levels of dispositional social perspective- taking (e.g., Mattan et al. 2016 ) and perceived similarity (e.g., Chambers and Davis 2012 )or dissimilarity (e.g., Simpson and Todd 2017 ; Tamir and Mitchell 2013 ; Todd et al. 2011 )with EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 357 the target have been found to be relevant factors for adults ’situational social perspective- taking. There are indeed further research branches on social perspective-taking in various contexts (e.g., Ingraham 2017 ), however, often outside educational contexts and including social perspective-taking as predictor variable instead of including it as dependent variable (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2005 ;Galinskyetal. 2008 ; Galinsky and Moskowitz 2000 ;Galinskyand Mussweiler 2001 ). Taken together, the cognitive capacity to consider other individuals ’points of view via situational social perspective-taking processes could be a function of dispositional social perspective-taking as well as further relevant factors (e.g., gender, similarity). Several synthe- ses published in 2006 and 2007 provided overviews of existing evidence on theory of mind research from different periods of time (e.g., Milligan et al. 2007 ). Perspective-taking is mentioned a few times in these syntheses beside the central feature to distinguish between oneself and other individuals when one has a theory of mind (e.g., Milligan et al. 2007 ). However, there is a lack of systematically reviewed literature in which studies are explicitly published under the label social perspective -taking. The relationships between social perspective-taking and positive social interactions or distress for mental health have rarely been addressed in systematic reviews. We assumed that intraindividual factors (e.g., gender, dispositional social perspective-taking, see Fig. 1), and contextual factors (e.g., characteristics of the target person and social relationship, Duran and Dale 2014 ; Engen and Singer 2012 ; Johnson and Johnson 2005 ) would affect situational social perspective-taking as proposed for empathy (Engen and Singer 2012 ). Furthermore, we expected intraindividual changes over time involving dispositional (e.g., Konrath et al. 2011 ) or situational social perspective-taking through intervention. A systematic overview of published studies would suggest first insights on whether adults ’dispositional and situational social perspective-taking skills are related to each other, as well as whether they are related to the internal and external (protective) factors discussed above. This is highly important for teachers ’seeing what students see and under- standing behaviors of these students. The Current Review We adapted the core network model of empathy to dispositional and situational social perspective-taking skills, drawing upon previous theoretical contributions (e.g., Davis 2018 ; Gehlbach 2010 ,2011 ; Libby and Eibach 2011 ;seeFig. 1). We expected dispositional and situational social perspective-taking to be re lated to known protective factors for mental and physical health, e.g., perceived positive social int eractions and social relationships, low levels of distress, and low levels of cortisol, in corre lational studies among adults. We were mainly interested in determinants of dispositional or situational social perspective-taking but also included studies with dispositional or situational soc ial perspective-taking as a correlated variable. We asked whether dispositional social perspective-taking affects adults ’situational social perspective-taking skills (assessed by self-report measures vs. tasks respectively); whether there are published findings available on this relationship; and whether relevant internal and external factors are related to dispositional and situational social perspective-taking. If specific conditions activate social perspective-taking processes, is there an interplay between malleable dispositional social perspective-taking and situational social perspective-taking? Here, we invoke the term malleability to refer to changes in dispositional and situational social perspective-taking due to either a specific intervention or the passage of time. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 358 The primary outcome of interest from published studies was a proof of concept by findings of dispositions or conditions which improve dispositional or situational social perspective- taking. Evidence of intraindividual variability in personality (e.g., Fleeson 2004 ) or changes in personality through intervention (Roberts et al. 2017 ) let us expect changes in dispositional social perspective-taking through intervention as well. The secondary outcome of interest was evidence of changes in dispositional or situational social perspective-taking through interven- tion or over time. Accordingly, the research questions were as follows: (1) Do men and women differ in dispositional or situational social perspective-taking? (2a) What are predictors of social perspective-taking? (2b) Which factors relevant for school and health are related to social perspective-taking? (3) Which situational factors predict high levels of situational social perspective-taking? (4) What proportion of situational social perspective-taking is related to dispositional social perspective-taking? (5) What evidence is there to support the hypothesis that dispositional or situational social perspective-taking can be changed? Method Selection Criteria Target individuals for the current systematic review were healthy adults above 18 years of age who participated in correlational or experimental studies presented in original peer-reviewed empirical articles; we also included peer-reviewed theoretical contributions (published in English or German). Studies of individuals under 18 years of age were excluded, as were those concerning adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, mental illness, or requiring additional support. We included studies investigating both dispositional and situational social perspective- taking. However, studies on perspective-taking that did not include human(-like) targets were excluded due to our initial research question regarding adults in social situations. Previous syntheses already summarized evidence on theory of mind (e.g., Derksen et al. 2018 )and empathy (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ). Due to scientific consensus that healthy adults have normally developed a theory of mind, which serves as a foundation for social perspective- taking processes (e.g., Bloom and German 2000 ), studies including the words “theory of mind ”in the abstract or keywords or which focused on false-belief tasks were excluded. Finally, relational frame theory paradigms —which involve deictic relations that anchor a person ’s perspective here and now (i.e., Iis coordinated with here and now ), and conversely, anchor the perspectives of others there and then (e.g., you is coordinated, from my perspective, there and then )—were excluded due to the focus on aspects of language related to executive functions (e.g., shifting between relational frames, Wolgast and Barnes-Holmes 2018 ). Systematic Literature Search Procedures We followed search procedures outlined in our research protocol in accordance with systematic review guidelines (Moher et al. 2015 ;Shamseeretal. 2015 ). The protocol is available on PROSPERO (number: CRD42***BLINDED FOR PEER REVIEW). In contrast to recently discussed preregistrations of research hypotheses for experimental or correlational studies (e.g., Gehlbach and Robinson 2018 ), a PROSPERO protocol requires to set the research questions, searching strategy (i.e., which databases will be used), and inclusion and exclusion EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 359 criteria for conducting a systematic review (Moher et al. 2015 ; Shamseer et al. 2015 ). First, we initially specified subject terms in English (e.g., “social perspective-taking, ”“ perspective- taking, ”“ empathy, ”the complete list of terms can be obtained by the authors for reasons of space) to conduct the systematic review using electronic databases (ERIC, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and PubPsych). These subject terms were combined with the inclusion or exclusion criteria mentioned above, which we expected to find in the title, abstract, or keywords of a publication. We additionally conducted a broad search for articles containing the words “perspective-taking AND social ”or“perspective-taking AND empathy ”in the title, abstract, or keywords to ensure that we had identified all relevant articles. We then conducted manual searches of the references of eligible articles and key review articles. We re-ran our database searches twice over several months and retrieved a further 16 studies for inclusion. An overview gives the PRISMA 2009 flow diagram including numbers of records at each step of our systematic literature searching identification, screening, and eligibility that can be obtained from the authors for reasons of space (template from Moher et al. 2009 ). Overall, the searches initially resulted in 220 publications from the databases. Manual searches of the references of eligible articles resulted in 30 publications as summarized in the flow chart. One of three post-doctoral researchers in psychology (the authors) and one student assistant (psychology graduate) screened the search results, which were then cross-referenced by the second and third researchers. We looked for research, including theoretical contributions, on dispositional or situational social perspective-taking published between January 2008 and October 2018 due to the above- mentioned published reviews in 2006 and 2007 (Milligan et al. 2007 ; Rao et al. 2007 ; Singer 2006 ). Theoretical contributions were identified and incorporated into the theoretical frame- work (see the integrated framework in Fig. 1for an overview). This identification step further involved two researchers screening the titles to identify ineligible records or duplicates; 22 records were excluded due to obvious ineligibility from the title and keywords or because they were duplicates. We sent inquiries for full texts to the first authors if full texts were not otherwise available. In a second step, we screened the full texts of 214 publications and excluded 149 contributions according to the exclusion criteria defined in the protocol mentioned in the paragraph above or because of missing information (e.g., authors reported aggregate data but not the sample size at the individual level). We also reviewed the reference lists of the included studies for further eligible publications. Articles containing results on perspective-taking in adults with mental disorders, diseases, or the need for additional support, as well as a control group, were screened; we only included the control group. Afterwards, a total of 56 publications presenting correlational and experimental studies remained for the systematic review, as displayed in Table 1. Our criteria for assessing study quality were that the following points be described: sample size for analysis, including the number of female or male participants; materials or measures used; survey or experimental procedure; description of appropriate statistical analysis and results. Questions or disagree- ments during the screening procedures were discussed and resolved in two one-to three-hour lab meetings per month. Summary of Review Results The systematic literature search procedures resu lted in 56 full texts: 20 full texts including 29 correlational studies and 36 full texts including 63 experimental studies. The full texts EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 360 Table 1 Summary of research in vestigating adults ’dispositional (DP) or situational (TP) social pe rspective-taking assi gned to review questions Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP 1) Do men and women differ in dispositional or situational socialperspective-taking? Dugan, et al. ( 2015 ) N= 29,811 DP scale (adapted from Davis 1980 ) Results for four participants ’leadership development domains (i.e., leadership capacity, leadership efficacy, DP, resilience) indicated the importance oftargeting educational interventions and developmental advising to the domain of interest while simultaneously being aware of how they affect one another. Gender (without further information), sociocultural conversations with peers Diehl et al. ( 2014 ) N= 119 German Empathy Scale ( Leibetseder et al. 2001 ) Presenting accurate information about the consequences of sexual harassment to participants decreased their sexual harassment myth acceptance (and men ’s likelihood of sexually harassing). Actualizing vs. downplaying report; men were less empathic than women. DV O ’Brien et al. ( 2013 ) N= 75,263 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) Evidence for an inverse U-shaped pattern by age: Middle-aged adults reported higher DP than both young adults and older adults. Gender (consistent difference): Women reported more DP than men. (2a) What are predictors of social perspective-taking?Buffone et al. ( 2017 ) N= 212 Imagine self vs. other vs. objective instructions, help recipient statement, personal distress (according to Batson et al. 1997 ) Imagine-self perspective taking (ISPT) compared to imagine-other perspec- tive taking (IOPT)/remaining objec- tive resulted in relatively greater threat, whereas IOPT resulted in mar- ginally greater relative challenge. This effect was mediated by increased per-ceived demands of the situation. Self-reported distress was only asso- ciated with threat during ISPT, not IOPT. Distress, situational demands MV Dugan et al. ( 2014 ) N= 13,289 DP scale (adapted from Davis 1980 ) After controlling for students ’pre-college leadership capacity, DP emerged as an Individual leadership values EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 361 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP important mediator between individu- al leadership values (i.e., conscious- ness of self, congruence, commitment) and group leadership values (i.e., collaboration, handling controversy with civility). Kajonius and Dåderman ( 2017 ) N1= 284, N2= 599 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ,1983 ) Specific dispositions related to personality disorders (e.g., paranoid with low PT). Five Factor Model-based personality-disorder scores overall related to only two of the empathy traits, low emphatic con-cern and high personal distress. Negatively related to personality-disorder scores Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV van den Bos et al. ( 2011 ) Age 12 –22: N =62; Age 18 –22: n =18 Trust game Older adolescents were more sensitive to the perspective of the other player, as indicated by their reciprocal behavior, than younger adolescents. Theseadvanced forms of DP behavior were associated with increased involvement of the left temporoparietal junction and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Age van Lissa et al. ( 2014 ) Adolescent-mother dyads: N=67 Writing task to prime an empathic mindset (based on Batson et al. 2003 ); Interpersonal Reactivity Index (adapted from Davis 1980 ; Hawk et al. 2013 ) Affective empathy manipulation in adolescents led to a non-significant trend in the hypothesized direction that affective empathy promotes active problem solving in a conflict discus-sion with one ’s mother. The cognitive empathy manipulation led to reduced escalation and greater listening among adolescents low in DP in a conflict discussion with their mother. Cognitive empathy priming among adolescents (2b) Which factors relevant for school and health are related tosocial perspective-taking? EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 362 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Bach et al. ( 2017 ) N= 79,563 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) DP was related to lower violent crime rates, lower rates of aggravated assault, lower rates of robbery, and higher well-being. – Barr ( 2011 ) N=100 teachers Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) Teachers ’DP was related to perceived student peer relationships, educational opportunities and school norms.Personal distress was negatively related to student peer relationships. Teachers higher in DP viewed their school ’s educational opportunities more positively than those lower inDP. Positive relations between DP and perceived student peer relationships, educational opportunities, schoolnorms, school culture DV Bostic ( 2014 ) N= 27 teachers, N = 1,861 students DP adapted from Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ); DP differences by type of course taught (workshop/regular/honors) in favor of workshop; teachers ’DP was positively correlated with years of teaching experience and expectations for students. Years of experience, course type Gehlbach et al. ( 2008 ) N= 119 students, N = 30 teachers Students ’social perspective-taking accuracy: Scores were calcu- lated by correlating students ’ predictions with their teacher ’s actual self-report measure de-veloped by Gehlbach et al. ( 2012a ,b,c). Changes in students ’social perspective-taking accuracy were as- sociated with improved teacher –student relationships from both the student and teacher points ofview. Accuracy was correlated significantly with the positivity of the teacher-student re- lationship as rated by both students and teachers, homework, self-efficacy, effort extended for the class. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Kordts-Freudinger ( 2017 ) N2= 198 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) DP related to the outcome variable student-oriented approach. Positive relationship between DP and empathic concern and the student-oriented approach, negative re- lation between DP and distress. Mooradian et al. ( 2011 ) N= 245 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) DP was significantly correlated with all five domains in the NEO-FFI and four of the Mini-Marker dimensions; Inregression analyses, DP appeared to All dimensions of Big Five (positive relation with extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,but negative relation with neuroticism) EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 363 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP be primarily a combination of agree- ableness and openness. Pavey et al. ( 2012 ) N1= 70, N2= 166, N3=59 N1: text vignette (adapted from Batson et al. 1997 );N2:DP subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ); N3: text vignette (adapted fromBatson et al. 1988 ) Autonomous motivation to help, rather than controlled motivation to help, was a mediator of the relationship between empathy (state empathy, trait empathy, or empathetic arousal) andhelping. Autonomous motivation to help DV Sassenrath et al. ( 2014 ) N1= 63, N2= 78, N3a=85, N3b=19 Perspective-taking task (adapted from Keysar 1994 ) Avoidance orientation led to higher perceived self-other differences, which in turn led to more accurate TPcompared to an approach motivational orientation. Avoidance orientation Sollberger et al. ( 2014 ) Healthy controls: n =19 Empathic concern subscale of Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) Patients with behaviorally variant frontotemporal dementia or semantically variant primary progressive aphasia tended to overestimate their level of empathicconcern compared to healthy controls, and overestimating one ’s empathic concern predicted damage to predominantly right-hemispheric an- terior inferolateral temporal regions,whereas no neuroanatomical basis for underestimating one ’s empathic con- cern was found. – Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Swartz and McElwain ( 2012 ) N= 24 Observations during preservice teachers ’regular student teaching hours; Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) Teachers reporting higher levels of DP exhibited more supportive and fewer non-supportive responses to children ’s negative emotions. Of note is that perspective-taking was associated with greater support of negative emo- tions only when teachers also reportedlow or moderate levels of suppression in regulating their own emotions. DP positively correlated with support and negatively correlated with non-support with respect to child negative emotional displays. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 364 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Thoma et al. ( 2011 ) Healthy controls: n =21 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ;Paulus 2009 ); behavioral empathy using the Multifaceted Empathy Test (see Dziobek et al. 2008 ) Dispositional and behavioral empathy components administered along with tests of cognitive flexibility, response inhibition and working memory showed higher self-reported empathy in depressed patients, mainly driven by increased personal distress scores,relative to controls. Patients and con- trols did not differ significantly in terms of behavioral cognitive empathy, empathic concern and per- sonal affective involvement or in theirexecutive function performance. Depression van Ryn et al. ( 2014 ) N= 4,732 Jefferson Empathy Scale Student Version (Tavakol et al. 2011 ); Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Davis 1980 ) Discomfort, uncertainty, and close-mindedness were negatively as- sociated with attitudes toward physi- cian empathy in patient encounters, while the tendency to respond to others with empathic concern and DPwere positively associated. Discomfort, uncertainty, and close-mindedness (negatively), empa- thetic responses (positively) Verhofstadtetal.( 2016 ) Couples: N= 50 Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Dutch version of Davis 1980 ; De Corte et al. 2007 );support interaction task (adapted from e.g., Pasch and Bradbury 1998 ) For male partners, TP accuracy was related to lower levels of negative support provision. For both partners, higher TP scores were associated withthe provision of positive instrumental support. Negative or positive support provision Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP 3) Which situational factors predict high levels of situational social perspective-taking? DV Agarwal et al. ( 2017 ) N= 8 Pictures of a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment: first-person perspective-based allocentric object location memory task (OLMT), 3-PP based egocentric visual Participants had significantly lower accuracy in a visual perspective-taking task compared to a table task. Subjects took significantly longer in the visual perspective-taking task than in tabletask; fMRI revealed significantly Visual perspective-taking task vs. table task EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 365 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP perspective-taking task (VPRT), and a table task (TT) as the control task (Amorim 2003 ); functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) higher activation in the bilateral visual cortex and left temporoparietal junc- tion (TPJ) in VPRT compared to OLMT. Barber et al. ( 2010 ) N= 116 Cooperative storytelling task (computer vs. card condition) Negative relationship with TP in terms of anticipating and source accuracy:Cognitive operations associated with anticipating a partner ’s response resembled those produced when the individuals themselves took the action. – DV Bardi et al. ( 2017 ) N=18 3-PP task : abduction of index or little finger in response to the number (1: index finger, 2: little finger) while viewing congruent or incongruent finger movements on the computer screen. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) increased control but did not attenuate task-irrelevant response acti- vation: the effect of motor mirroring was not suppressed or reduced. Facil- itating temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) activity via anodal tDCS selectivelyenhanced the instructed motor plan (self-related representation). In contrast to sham stimulation, anodal tDCS of the right TPJ (which enhances cortical excitability) modulated motor cortex activation, leading to a suppression of the congruency effect. DV Beussink et al. ( 2017 ) N= 327 Radio broadcast and helping task ( Batson et al. 1997 ); Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (Aronet al. 1992 ) College students exhibiting higher levels of callous affect can, at least temporarily, demonstrate moreappropriate affect after receiving specific instructions to engage in TP. Results did not support the idea that receiving TP instructions leads to higher levels of sadness, empathicconcern, perceived closeness, and helping. – Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Böffel and Müsseler ( 2018 ) N= 48 Animation-based avatar task Users with the avatar-high-ownership in- struction reported higher levels of perceived avatar ownership andshowed larger spatial compatibility Low/high avatar-ownership instruction EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 366 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP effects from the avatar ’s point of view than those with a low ownership in- struction. Thus, perceived ownership appears to benefit perspective taking. DV Deliens et al. ( 2018 ) N= 24 Visual perspective-taking task (adapted from Surtees et al. 2016 ) Total sleep deprivation globally deteriorates visual TP and social performance. Total sleep deprivation DV Deroualle ( 2015 ) N= 20 Virtual ball-tossing game from a distant avatar ( 3-PP task ) Vestibular signals influenced TP with respect to a human-like avatar (con- tributed to understanding other ’s ac- tions). Position predicted response time Erle and Topolinski ( 2017 ) N1= 102, N2= 218, N3= 227, N4= 265, N5= 255 Social 3-PP task /nonsocial perspective-taking task (the target person was removed from the pictures and instead an empty chair was displayed; e.g., Kessler and Rutherford 2010 );psychological perspective-taking task (adopted from Strack and Mussweiler 1997 ) Individuals adopted random thoughts utteredbyanotherpersonmore strongly after imagining how the world visually appears to that person. Taking the target person ’s perspective led participants to adopt that person ’s thoughts more strongly and increasedthe perceived similarity between that person and the self and participants ’ liking of that person. These effects were independent of task difficulty, and only present during trials wherean embodied transformation occurred (i.e., at high angular disparities). RTs were very similar between 0° and 80° of angular disparity and only began increasing at the 120° level. Greater angular disparity between participant and target led to longer RTs DV Knowles ( 2014 ) N1= 40, N2= 60, N3=64 N1: E-task (Hass 1984 ) to measure TP; Maze task (Stephenson and Wicklund 1984 ) Socially rejected participants displayed greater TP than accepted participants. Even under high cognitive load, rejected participants took others’ perspectives into consideration on a task requiring social coordination. The effect could not be attributed to adesire to avoid self-awareness. TP predicted social memory, suggesting Social rejection vs. acceptance condition; load vs. no-load condition EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 367 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP that this rejection-induced shift in perspectives is adaptive. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Mohr et al. ( 2013 ) n= 369 Mental imagery task on bodily perspective taking ( 3-PP task , e.g., Arzy et al. 2006 ) Responses were slower for front-facing than back-facing figures, controlling for background variables and collec-tivism. Front- vs. back-facing figures; having siblings, parents ’marital status, cultural background Morey and Dansereau ( 2010 ) n= 162 Decision advice measure ( perspective priming task ; Levin et al. 2000 ); TP participants were instructed to brainstorm a list of all potential family and friends, heroes, and good-hearted rascals who might be Thought Teamcandidates, examining the strengths of each individual. Participants were asked to choose three or four from the list to create a personal Thought Team. Priming the perspectives of others (the Thought Team during decision advice trials) significantly enhanced the in-fluence of these perspectives of one ’s own thinking and behavior. TP could be a function of accessibility of per- spectives. TP activation or accessibility of perspectives DV Santiesteban et al. ( 2017 ) N1= 16, N2=19 Dot perspective-taking task ( 3-PP task ; Samson et al. 2010) No evidence for a distinction between mentalistic and non-mentalistic stimu- li: stimulation of right temporoparietal junction impaired performance on all self-perspective trials, regardless of the mentalistic/non-mentalistic natureof the stimulus. – Seinfeld et al. 2018 N=44, n =39 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ,1983 ) Experiencing virtually a different body to one ’s own can influence perceptions, attitudes and behavior. Altering the perception of the self, from a purely bodily aspect, seems to also modify self-related socio-cognitive processes. Experiencing virtually a different body DV Surtees ( 2016 ) N1= 32, Number trials (alone vs. joint) Joint condition EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 368 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP N2= 48, N3=48 When participants completed the task on their own, they were equally efficient at judging the magnitude of the numbers 8 and 5 as the numbers 9 and 6. When they performed the same task in a pair, however, their responses were faster on trials in which theirperspective was consistent with that of their partner than on trials in which their perspective was inconsistent with that of their partner. The partners did not need to complete exactly the sametask, as TP occurred even when the partner did an irrelevant task. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Trötschel et al. ( 2011 ) N1= 160, N2= 120, N3= 194 Negotiation task ; questionnaire assessing social motivation and perspective-taking developedby Trötschel et al. ( 2011 ). Whereas negotiators ’egoistic motivation increased the risk of partial impasses, TP alleviated this risk. This beneficialeffect of a perspective-taking mindset was limited to integrative negotiations and did not emerge in a distributive context, in which negotiators are constrained to achieve selfish goals byinflicting hurtful losses on their coun- terparts. In an integrative context, egoistic perspective-takers overcome the risk of impasses by means of log- rolling. Manipulation of the perspective-taking mindset (egocentric vs. prosocial con- ditions) DV Wilson et al. ( 2017 ) N1= 32, N2= 48, N3= 48, N4=48 SketchUp stimulis (based on Samson et al. 2010) Interference persists when all social components are removed, and visual processes are sufficient to explain this type of interference, thus supporting a domain-general perceptual interpreta- tion of interference; 1PP interference is not dependent on social factors and EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 369 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP is more likely linked to lower-level domain general processing. 4) What proportion of dispositional social perspective-taking is related to situational social perspective-taking? Edwards et al. ( 2017 ) N=136, n=73 subsampleprovided descriptions of misunderstand- ings DP ( Davis 1980 ); situational perspective-taking oneself andby one ’s partner (adapted from Davis 1983 ); DP was negatively correlated with frequency and positively correlatedwith communication satisfaction and using an integrative strategy. TP and partner ’s TP were positively related to communication satisfaction and the use of integrative strategy by bothoneself and one ’s partner. Additionally, partner ’s situational perspective-taking was negatively re- lated to frequency of misunderstand- ings in the relationship. DP significantly correlated with communication satisfaction, taking anintegrative strategy. DP correlated with TP by oneself and one ’s partner. Erle and Topolinski ( 2015 ) N1=115, N2= 147, N3=169, N4= 163 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ;Paulus 2009 ), TP tasks (Kessler and Thomson 2010 ) Individuals with high levels of empathic DP were better at imagining differentviews of the same object (Studies 1 –3). This correlation could not be explained by general intelligence (Study 2) and was nominally stronger among participants who explicitlyreported that they engaged in spatial TP (Study 3). Study 4 showed a correlation between empathic DP and performance on another spatial TP-task. DP and TP correlated at low to moderate levels. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Hepper et al. ( 2014 ) N1= 282, N2= 95, N3= 88, n3=77for analyses DP items (adapted from Davis 1980 ); TP manipulation (adapted from Batson et al. 1991 ) DP ameliorated the negative links between maladaptive narcissism and self-reported empathy and heart rate. That is, narcissists can be moved by another ’s suffering if they take that person ’s perspective. Reaction to a story in perspective-taking vs. natural respon-ding condition; nar- cissists reported low DP and exhibited low TP. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 370 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Slavny and Moore ( 2018 ) N=78, n=59 Intentionality bias task (Rosset 2008 ); Questionnaire of Cog- nitive and Affective Empathy ( Reniers et al. 2011 ) Cognitive empathy, but not affective empathy, signifi-cantly predicted the proportion of intentional judgements when participants were asked to inter- pret ambiguous sentences that were prototypically accidental. Greater perspective-taking skills predicted ahigher proportion of intentional vs. accidental evaluations of ambiguous actions. Individual differences in cognitive empathy were related to higher intentionality bias scores only for perspective-taking ability and not online simulation. Individual differences in in- tentionality bias are related to greater DP in neurotypical individuals. DV Chambers and Davis ( 2012 ) N1= 181, N2= 131, N3= 65,N4= 277 Audiotaped interview ;empathic reaction questionnaire ( N1: health vs. relationship condition in four perspective conditions: imagine-target, imagine-self, objective, control; N2: three ambiguity conditions; N3: sympathy ratings; N4: four typical student scenarios) Ease of self-simulation had a stronger relationship with empathic reactionsunder specific conditions: when de- liberate efforts had been made to take the target ’s perspective, when there was ambiguity regarding the target ’s experience, and when a competing cognitive task made more effortful in- ference strategies less likely. The as-sociation between self-related thoughts and empathic reactions was independent of thoughts about others, such as the degree to which the tar- get ’s problem can be imagined as happening to a typical person. Sympathy for the student, willingness to help the student, empathy composite;empathy composite consisting of sympathy and willingness to help Church ( 2015 ) N1= 58, N2=39 Role-taking experience task and Davis ’(1980 ) DP subscale Auditors with role-taking experience (as a manager) were better able to assess whether the manager ’s reported earn- ings were materially misstated thanauditors without role-taking experi- ence. Role-taking experience; auditors with high DP are better able to judge managers ’ reported earnings than auditors with low DP. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Duran et al. ( 2011 ) N1= 89, N2= 96, N3=80 Object identification task ( 3-PP task ; based on Schober 1993 ) Participants thoroughly invested in either an other-centric or egocentric mode of responding. TP strategies are not al-ways dictated by minimizing Other-centric vs. egocentric mode of responding; degree of rotation (speaker-listener position). A largeproportion of participants resolved EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 371 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP processing demands, but by more po- tent (albeit subtle) factors related to the social context. The average linear increase in RT for other-centric re- sponders was much higher than that for ego-centric responders. referential ambiguity in favor of their partner ’s perspective, even when it was more cognitively difficult to do so. DV Engert et al. ( 2014 ) N= 422 DP scale (Paulus 2009 German version adapted from Davis 1980 ); Emotional Response Scale ( Batson et al. 1997 ) Overall, 26% of observers displayed physiologically significant cortisol increases. This empathic stress was more pronounced in intimate observer-target dyads (40%) and when the stressor was presented in real life(30%). Despite the higher prevalence of empathic stress in the partner and real-life observation conditions, sig- nificant cortisol responses also emerged for strangers (10%) and the virtual observation condition (24%). DP, observer ’s familiarity with the target (close relationship vs. stranger) facilitated empathic stress. Empathic stress was modulated by interindividual differences in DP. Gehlbach et al. ( 2015 ) N= 842 Self-report scale on perceived relationship with other party, DP confidence scale, participants ’own perspective-taking effort and perception of the other party ’s DP effort (adapted from Gehlbach et al. 2012a ) Perspective-takers who received information about the other party developed more positive relationships and made greater concessions than participants who did not receive this information. Those who experientiallylearned about the other party ’s perspective felt more positive about their relationships and made greater concessions during the negotiation than those who were simply providedinformation about the other party ’s perspective. No learning vs. experiential learning conditions; conditional differences in DP and perceived relationship with other party (which may be linked to TP) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Gehlbach et al. ( 2012b ) N= 116 Scales assessing dispositions related to participants ’DP, a case-based scenario with Participants improved their DP in three ways: by more accurately detecting biases in others, by generating moreinitial hypotheses to explain others ’ Service years correlated positively with TP accuracy, deployments correlatedpositively with TP. A dispositional factor and certain prior experiences EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 372 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP embedded assessment tasks, and a video-based TP task . behaviors, and by adapting their hypotheses in the face of new evidence. The curriculum did not affect participants ’TP accuracy in a video measure. appear to be associated with TP accuracy rather than “reflective ”TP tasks from scenarios. DV Gilin et al. ( 2012 ) N1= 90, N2= 135 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 );N1:acomplex, multiple-round, computer-based “Disarmament Game ”simulation; N2: a social coalition game Perspective-takers were more accurate in cognitively understanding others,whereas empathy produced stronger accuracy in emotional understanding. DP and empathy were each useful in different types of competitive, mixed-motive situations —their suc- cess depended on the task-competency match. DV Gorgas et al. ( 2015 ) N= 33 Intervention (a two-hour session focused on improving TP skills with a series of four case scenarios , each involving a person in distress); 10-itemsample of the Hay 360 Emo- tional Competence Inventory (Wolff 2006 ) Intervention effect after six months in the form of increased emotional competence (including DP). Intervention; TP intervention increased DP. DV Mattan et al. ( 2016 ) N= 43 TP task adapted from Mattan et al. ( 2015 ), Interpersonal Reactivi- ty Index ( Davis 1980 ) High TP was associated with diminished costs of selecting between incongruentperspectives, especially when judging the perspective of the self-avatar. High TP was associated with reduced self-prioritization when the avatars ’ perspectives were congruent. Trendswere observed to the effect that higher TP scores were associated with faster overall RTs and a reduced cost of processing conflicting (i.e., incongru- ent) perspectives. DP; higher empathy scores were associated with faster overall RTs and reduced costof processing incongruent perspectives. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP DV Mohr et al. ( 2010 ) N=100 EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 373 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Empathy quotient questionnaire (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004 ); mental imagery task on bodily perspective-taking ( 3-PP task ; e.g., Arzy et al. 2006 ) Results from the TP (3PP) task showed higher rotational costs for women than men, suggesting that mental rotation rather than social strategies had been employed. Faster responding by women with higher empathy scores appears to indicate that some womenengaged in DP irrespective of the fig- ures ’position. Figures ’sex was rele- vant to task performance as higher rotational costs were observed for male figures in the TP task amongparticipants of both sexes and for fe- male figures in the TP(1PP) task among women. Gender, empathy as DP, front vs. back-facing figures, displayed figure ’s gender. Faster responding by women with higher empathy scores. DV Nielsen et al. ( 2015 ) n1= 10, n2=28 TP and digit prompts (first- and 3-PP task ), target stimuli (avatar, arrow, block); Interpersonal Reactivity Index( Davis 1980 ) RT indices of altercentric intrusion effects were present across all conditions but were significantly stronger for the social conditions compared to the lesssocial conditions. DP, empathy, social condition; DP and empathy correlated with altercentric intrusion effects in the social condition only. Pfeifer et al. ( 2009 ) N= 12 Direct and reflected self-appraisal task During direct self-reflection, adolescents demonstrated greater activity than adults in networks relevant to self-perception (medial prefrontal andparietal cortices) and social cognition (dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, temporal –parietal junction, and poste- rior superior temporal sulcus), sug- gesting adolescent self-construals mayrely more heavily on others ’perspec- tives about the self. Participants were asked to describe how they went about answering items in the reflected self-appraisal conditions, with the results suggesting that participantsused a combination of strategies to per- form the task, including DP. DV Theodoridou et al. ( 2013 ) N=96, N= 120 TP task using photographs, computer based 3-PP-task Men responded faster than women in the placebo group but just as slowly as women in the oxytocin group. Oxytocin, empathy; women with higher DP were found to be slower in TP. Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP Yuan et al. ( 2017 ) N=17, n=16; EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 374 Table 1 (continued) Study Sample DP/TP-measure Summary of results (incl. DP changes over time) Factors related to DP or TP N = 14 TP motion discrimination task (based on 3-PP task ; Interpersonal Reactivity Index ( Davis 1980 ) Facilitation aftereffect when participants were instructed to take the avatar ’s perspective. Participants ’While facilitation was induced for participants with low DP (e.g., viewing a leftward motion stimulus from another ’s perspective), those with high DP showed an adaptation aftereffect (e.g., viewing a leftward motion stimulus from another ’s perspective weakened one ’s subsequent perception of leftwardmotion from the self-perspective). DP; DP correlated with this effect for both instructed and spontaneous TP, when the “to-be-adopted ”perspective required participants to mentally transform their self-body clockwise. Meyer and Lieberman ( 2016 ) N=60 Director task ; social working memory training trials Social working memory training significantly increased TP accuracy, and these improvements significantly surpassed the improvements made by participants who underwent only working memory training. Intervention: Twelve days of social vs. working memory training (20 min/day) DV Wald et al. ( 2017 ) n= 180 Social Empathy Index (e.g., Lietz et al. 2011 ) Participants in the perspective-taking condition, specifically those who lost resources, also lost DP and exhibited egoistic behavior. Treatment groups that lost resources (start high/end low) reported lower DP scores compared to control groups. Changes in DP after treatment. DP , dispositional perspective-taking; TP, situational persp ective-taking; DV, social perspective-taking included as dependent variable; MV , social perspective- taking included as mediator variable. Research paradigms in italics, e.g., Batson paradigm materials (e.g., 1991 ,1997 );Davis ’(1980 ) perspective-taking su bscale (original, adapted, or translated); Gehlbach paradigm measures (e.g., 2012a ,b,c).N, sample mentioned in the article cited, n, subsample if mentioned, Nindex /nindex , study number as given in the original article. RTs, reaction times. The tasks are furt her explained in Online Resource 1 EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 375 of all of these 56 included articles were screened by one of the three researchers and the student assistant to obtain information relevant to our research questions. Another of the three researchers cross-checked the extracted i nformation. We discussed the information in lab meetings twice a month. The 92 studies differed in research design, for example, the combination of measures in correlational s tudies or the research paradigms used in experimental studies. Table 1gives an overview of the sample sizes and relevant results extracted from the full text screening of the correlational and experimental studies. Dispositional social perspective-taking was assessed in both correlational and experimen- tal studies: as a dependent variable in six co rrelational studies and 27 articles from experimental research. Interestingly, the m ajority of these studies involved the original (e.g., Barr 2011 ) or an adapted version (e.g., Bostic 2014 ) of the dispositional perspective- taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) developed by Davis ( 1980 ). We present the results of the systematic review grouped according to our initial questions as follows. (1) Do men and women differ in dispositional or situational social perspective-taking? Men and women differed in dispositional social perspective-taking where women consistently have an advantage (e.g., Diehl et al. 2014 ; Leibetseder et al. 2001 ; O’Brien et al. 2013 ). However, the reviewed studies included in our systematic review found no differences between male and female participants with regard to the situational form visuo-spatial social perspective-taking accuracy(e.g.,Arzyetal. 2006 ; Erle and Topolinski 2015 ;Mohretal. 2010 ; Theodoridou et al. 2013 ; see Online Resource 1for task descriptions). (2a) What are predictors of social perspective-taking? Gender, age, self-reported distress, and physiological distress differently predicted disposi- tional social perspective-taking: In cross-sectional large-scale research, dispositional social perspective-taking described an inverted u-curve between 18 and 89 years of age with a plateau between 48 and 64 years of age (e.g., O ’Brien et al. 2013 ). Self-reported low distress levels (e.g., Buffone et al. 2017 ; see Table 1for a summary) or measured low cortisol levels (e.g., Engert et al. 2014 ) were related to high levels of dispositional social perspective-taking. Further findings suggested a relationship between self-reported distress and threat in an imagine-self perspective-taking condition but not in an imagine-other perspective-taking condition. This relationship between distress and situational social perspective-taking is in line with other findings (e.g., Batson et al. 1997 ; Chambers and Davis 2012 ; see Online Resource 1for task description) that suggest a need to distinguish between imagining how another feels and imagining how you would feel as two different forms of situational social perspective-taking with different empathic consequences. (2b) Which factors relevant for school and health are related to social perspective-taking? Motivation (e.g., Pavey et al. 2012 ; Sassenrath et al. 2014 ) or the big-five personality dimensions openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness (except neuroticism, e.g., Mooradian et al. 2011 ) were positively related to adults ’disposi- tional social perspective-taking. For example, agreeableness is linked to cooperativeness that predicted adults ’dispositional social perspective-taking in research on cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson 2005 ). Self-reported distress (e.g., Kordts-Freudinger 2017 ), antisocial behavior problems (Bach et al. 2017 ), and subclinical narcissism (e.g., Hepper et al. 2014 ) were negatively related to adults ’dispositional social perspective-taking. Davis ( 1983 )already found a negative relationship between self-reported distress and adults ’dispositional social perspective-taking. Kordts-Freudinger ( 2017 ) conceptually replicated this negative relation- ship with university teachers and teaching assistants. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 376 Teachers ’years of teaching experience and positive expectations for students (Bostic 2014 ), and adults ’supportive responses to children (Swartz and McElwain 2012 )oradults (Verhofstadt et al. 2016 ) were further factors that positively related to dispositional social perspective-taking. (3) Which situational factors predict high levels of situational social perspective-taking? The own perspective (e.g., Agarwal et al. 2017 , Mohr et al. 2013 ; Surtees et al. 2016 ; Wilson et al. 2017 ) vs. seeing what someone else sees predicted situational social perspective-taking with adults ’faster responses in own-perspective conditions (e.g., Deroualle et al. 2015 ; Santiesteban et al. 2017 ; see also Erle and Topolinski 2017 ;Deroualle et al. 2015 ; Duran et al. 2011 ; see Online Resource 1for task descriptions). The ease of self- simulation heuristic related to empathic responses when deliberate efforts were made to mentalize the target person and their circumstances, when the target person ’s experience was ambiguous, or when a concurrent cognitive task made further mentalizing about the target person less likely (e. g., Buffone et al. 2017 ; Chambers and Davis 2012 ). (4) What proportion of dispositional social perspective-taking is related to situational social perspective-taking? Dispositional social perspective-taking was positively related to situational social perspective-taking in 17 articles (e.g., Duran et al. 2011 ; Edwards et al. 2017 ;Erleand To p o l i ns ki 2015 ;Hepperetal. 2014 ; Mattan et al. 2016 ; Pfeifer et al. 2009 ;Yuanetal. 2017 ; see Online Resource 1for the task description). Moreover, adults with high dispositional social perspective-taking and role-taking experience were better able to situational social perspective- taking than those with low dispositional perspective-taking and no role-taking experience (e.g., Church et al. 2015 ). (5) What evidence is there to support the hypothesis of changes in dispositional or situational social perspective-taking? The reviewed studies suggest that dispositional (e.g., Gorgas et al. 2015 ;O ’Brien et al. 2013 ) and situational social perspective-taking (e.g., Gehlbach et al. 2012c ;Gehlbachetal. 2015 ; Lietz et al. 2011 ; Meyer and Lieberman 2016 ; Trötschel et al. 2011 ;Waldetal. 2017 ;Wolff 2006 ) are malleable, as its level can change after brief interventions. Discussion The actual evidence reviewed stems from heterogeneous research approaches published under the label social perspective-taking in the last 10 years. The consensus view is that perspective- taking is a cognitive capacity (Mead 1934 ; Piaget and Cook 1952 ) related to mentalizing that helps individuals to regulate their emotions (e.g., Engen and Singer 2012 ) and make appro- priate responses in a social situation (Brown 1986 ; Fischer 1980 ; Lewis and Brooks-Gunn 1979 ). These relations are in accordance with the integrated framework depicted in Fig. 1. We proposed a specific theoretical position for this manuscript when it comes to the definition of what we call social perspective-taking. Specifically, the inclusion of visuo- spatial perspective-taking into this construct is a current trend (e.g., Erle and Topolinski 2017 ). Relations between the different forms of perspective-taking have been disputed since decades. There are accordingly different approaches to the concept of perspective-taking. Early findings on egocentrism and perspective-taking in children already stimulated researchers to discuss different forms such as visuo-spatial and social perspective-taking (e.g., Burka and Glenwick 1978 ; Chandler 1973 ; Ford 1979 ;Light 1983 ;Morss 1987 ; Piaget and Inhelder 1956 ). For example, responses to the three-mountains task developed by Piaget and Inhelder ( 1956 ) may represent a young child ’s rarely developed skill to see another angle of view visuo- EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 377 spatially or socially (Chandler 1973 ;Morss 1987 ; Piaget and Cook 1952 ). Young children expect that others see the world just as they do until they begin to experience, in addition to that egocentric point of view, many other points of view (Burka and Glenwick 1978 ; Chandler 1973 ). Researchers did not only describe more ego centrism and less perspectivism in young children but also in children and adults with a mental disorder (e.g., autism-spectrum disorder). Burka and Glenwick ( 1978 ,p.62)summarized “since developmental delays in perspective-taking were prognostic of social difficulties in disordered populations, mea- surements of perspective-taking may also be p redictive of social adjustment of normal children [or other human populations] as well. ”Furthermore, Light ( 1983 ) highlighted that Piaget intended “perspective ”to be taken in the visuo-spatially narrow sense and supposed to extend to interpersonally understand, for example, the other’s feelings, thoughts, and motives (Light 1983 ). Adults who have normally developed this cognitive capacity are able to use social perspective-taking appropria tely depending on situational requirements, as results from different conditions in experimental studies demonstrated (e.g., Chambers and Davis 2012 ). These findings are relevant for guiding teacher ’s appropriate responses to students (Warren 2018 ). Interestingly, the reviewed studies showed that moving into a position with a similar visuo- spatial perspective like a target person ’s perspective may facilitate situational social perspective-taking compared to staying in front of that person (e.g., Deroualle et al. 2015 ; Santiesteban et al. 2017 ). Thus, frequent rotating oneself in a position that allows to see what the students see might facilitate lectures from the university teacher ’s point of view. The question with regard to factors which support or impair social perspective-taking can be answered as follows (see “States of oneself ”and “Contextual conditions ”in Fig. 1): Adults with lower self-reported distress and cortisol levels showed consistently higher levels dispo- sitional social perspective-taking than those with lower levels of this disposition. The negative relationship between distress and dispositional social perspective-taking (e.g., Buffone et al. 2017 ;Engertetal. 2014 ) supports our initial assumption of adults ’social perspective-taking as a protective factor for health since teachers ’distress (e.g., Wolgast and Fischer 2017 ) and self- focusing (e.g., Bilz 2014 ) are frequently discussed. This relationship is especially important for developing intervention programs to improve teacher ’s mental health and prevent their burnout. Facilitated interpersonal interactions were related to both forms dispositional (e.g., Swartz and McElwain 2012 ) and situational social perspective-taking (e.g. Verhofstadt et al. 2016 ). Especially high levels of dispositional social perspective-taking positively related to high levels of the situational form (e.g., Pfeifer et al. 2009 ;Yuanetal. 2017 ). Only the gender differences, found when self-report measures were used (see “Characteristics of oneself ”in Fig. 1), are not reflected in findings from research on situational social perspective-taking the last 10 years (e.g., Erle and Topolinski 2015 ;Mohretal. 2010 ; Theodoridou et al. 2013 ). Visuo-spatial social perspective-taking was tested by objective measures in these studies. The comparable accuracy between females and males using objective measures extends findings from research using physiological measures or covert observation without finding gender differences (Eisenberg and Lennon 1983 ). The results from reviewed studies suggest that if a familiar person is integrated into the observing participant ’s self, the target-in-distress condition could activate imagine-self situa- tional social perspective-taking (Buffone et al. 2017 ;Engertetal. 2014 ), as described by Batson et al. ( 1997 ). EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 378 Situational social perspective-taking appears to be a skill set rather than only one skill: (1) seeing a target person in real life, virtually, or mentally and imagining the viewpoint of the target individual; (2) mentalizing about the target ’s social situation and recalling information about the target person if available. Although a large body of evidence under the label social perspective-taking exists, we found some understudied points in our integrating framework (see Fig. 1). These are educa- tional contextual conditions such as teachers ’situational social perspective-taking in school with regard to facilitating social interactions and bolster teacher-student relationships. So, we can only speculate that teachers who experience distress or difficult social interactions rather focus on students similar to themselves (Gehlbach et al. 2016 ) or focus on themselves (Bilz, 2014 ) than those with low levels of self-reported distress or experienced easy social interactions. Limitations of this Systematic Review An a priori limitation of the present systematic review was that it included only peer-reviewed theoretical contributions and articles presenting correlational or experimental studies. This limitation might reflect a tendency to publish mainstream research rather than novel or marginal approaches. One important limitation is the rather narrow definition of social perspective-taking and the timeframe for articles included in this review. The systematic review does not capture the perspective-taking literature exhaustively. It is rather a proof of concept for our theoretical conceptualization depicted in Fig. 1, not as an exhaustive summary of the perspective-taking literature. Only a few studies provided clear information about both the initial sample size ( N)and sample sizes for analyses ( n). Therefore, it is hard to estimate whether data were censored. Moreover, some of the reviewed articles on dispositional social perspective-taking were inconsistent, as they cited social perspective-taking items from Davis ( 1983 ), which does not provide items. In fact, Davis published the items in 1980 and cited this previous work (Davis 1980 ) in 1983 without re-publishing the items. Furthermore, missing data were rarely reported even when large-scale survey designs were applied (e.g., O ’Brien et al. 2013 ). Fewer than expected numbers of psychological studies in educational contexts could be included due to the ineligibility of the methods used or the study ’s specific focus (e.g., the effect of autism on situational perspective-taking in children or adolescents) outside teaching at school or in higher education. Finally, we included the studies on emotional and cognitive dimensions of empathy. However, the use of empathy measures that did not clearly distinguish between the emotional vs. cognitive dimension was a further limitation of the systematic review. Accord- ingly, we recommend using situational socia l perspective-taking tasks (e.g., Erle and To p o l i ns ki 2015 ) combined with self-report measures that clearly differentiate between the emotional and cognitive dimensions of empathy in future research. Implications for Future Research and Practice The umbrella term social perspective-taking explicitly mentioned in published articles encom- passes theoretically and methodologically heterogeneous research. We propose extending the conceptualization of social perspective-taking in adults as perspective coordination ,inline EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 379 with existing literature regarding children (e.g., Selman 1980 ) and with the present results from reviewed studies (e.g., Knowles 2014 ). The term perspective coordination serves to highlight skills involved in coordinating different perspectives with different degrees of similarity to one ’s own (e.g., Chambers and Davis 2012 ), and thus reflects greater behavioral flexibility (e.g., Meyer and Lieberman 2016 ) than the narrower concept of situational taking another ’s social perspective . Indeed, no person can fully and exclusively take the social perspective of another because she or he remains developmentally anchored to his/her own situational perspective (e.g., Deroualle et al. 2015 ; Epley et al. 2004 ). For example, under experimental conditions, a person can empathize with another person and understand what they are feeling, but all of this is experienced from the person ’s own perspective that has not changed (e.g., Buffone et al. 2017 ; Chambers and Davis 2012 ). In future studies, experimental conditions might be different teaching situations based on situations observed in reality which are simulated with virtual students in a virtual environment (e.g., cooperative learning groups who sit around tables vs. move around) and situational social perspective taking tasks. Student teachers ’dispositional social perspective-taking might be assessed as baseline before presenting the teaching situation and, subsequently, the situa- tional social perspective-taking. The experimental design could be extended to interactions with virtual students. In this case, a teaching situation would be presented, situational social perspective-taking assessed, and the participant may respond to virtual students. Experimental studies on situational social perspective-taking linked to teachers ’emotion regulation in classes would give new insights into the underlying and related processes of this social cognitive skill set. The reviewed studies did not apply longitudinal designs. Longitudinal studies across university or school teacher ’s lifespan and more interventions with undergraduates in teacher education or teachers would give further insights into changes in their dispositional or situational social perspective-taking over time. The integrated framework in Fig 1suggests interactions and indirect effects which may be tested using a longitudinal study design. For example, teacher ’s characteristics may interact with their states. Appraisals may mediate the relationship between dispositional and situational social perspective-taking. The intervention program proposed by Meyer and Lieberman ( 2016 ) might be adapted to teachers. Conclusion The actual reviewed evidence explains intraindividual and interindividual differences in adult ’s social perspective-taking. For example, low levels of distress related to high levels of dispo- sitional or situational social perspective-taking. This relationship may protect adult ’shealth. Research in schools or higher education on the difference between the relationship of dispositional social perspective-taking (cognitive empathy) with low distress levels vs. emo- tional empathy with high distress levels would make it possible to identify resilient teachers and teachers at risk of burnout. However, there is a clear need for research on the relationship of teachers ’dispositional and situational social perspective-taking with their students ’emotions or even learning outcomes. Such research might show whether teachers ’dispositional social perspective-taking makes a contribution to their situational social perspective-taking in class, teacher-student interactions, and learning in school, college, or university. Especially, visuo-spatial social perspective- taking of adults in educational contexts has rarely been investigated experimentally (Wolgast EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 380 and Oyserman 2019 ). Thus, we can only speculate about which research findings might be valid for adults in educational contexts. A teacher who makes an attempt to see what a student sees probably makes assumptions about the target; thus, seeing what a student sees might help teachers mentalize a student ’s steps to solving a task in school or higher education. Further research would help shed light on basic social cognitive processes in classes. Acknowledgments This work was funded by the Martin-Luther University ’s Promotion Program for Women. We are furthermore grateful to Vira Sonkina who supported the literature searching procedures, and Miriam Hille who supported task descriptions that we provide in Online Resource 1. The research protocol is registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42017067341). We did not present the ideas and data appearing in the manuscript on a website or at a conference. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review (in the theoretical background, integrated heuristic, method and results) *Agarwal, S. M., Shivakumar, V., Kalmady, S. V., Danivas, V., Amaresha, A. C., Bose, A., Narayanaswamy, J. C., Amorim, M. A., & Venkatasubramanian, G. (2017). Neural correlates of a perspective-taking task using in a realistic three-dimensional environment-based task: a pilot functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience ,15,276 –281. https://doi.org/10.9758 /cpn.2017.15.3.276 . Ames, D. (2004a). Inside the mind-reader ’s toolkit: projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 ,340 –353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340 . Ames, D. (2004b). Strategies for social inference: a similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 ,573 –585. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.573 . Ames, D. L., Jenkins, A. C., Banaji, M. R., & Mitchell, J. P. (2008). Taking another person ’s perspective increases self-referential neural processing. Psychological Science, 19 ,642 –644. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1467-9280.2008.02135.x . Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K., Suppes, A., & Bolger, N. (2010). Not so fast: The (not-quite-complete) dissociation between accuracy and confidence in thin-slice impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 ,264 –277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209354519 . Amorim, M.-A. (2003). “What is my avatar seeing? ”: the coordination of “out-of-body ”and “embodied ” perspectives for scene recognition across views. Visual Cognition, 10 ,157 –199. https://doi.org/10.1080 /713756678 . Aron, A. U., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 , 596 –612. https://doi.org/10.1037 /0022-3514.63.4.596 . Arzy, S., Thut, G., Mohr, C., Michel, C. M., & Blanke, O. (2006). Neural basis of embodiment: distinct contributions of temporoparietal junction and extrastriate body area. Journal of Neuroscience, 26 , 8074 – 8081. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0745-06.2006 . *Bach, R. A., Defever, A. M., Chopik, W. J., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Geographic variation in empathy: a state- level analysis. Journal of Research in Personality ,68,124 –130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.007 . *Barber, S. J., Franklin, N., Naka, M., & Yoshimura, H. (2010). Higher social intelligence can impair source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition ,36,545 –551. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0018406 *Bardi, L., Gheza, D., & Brass, M. (2017). TPJ-M1 interaction in the control of shared representations: new insights from tDCS and TMS combined. NeuroImage ,146 ,734 –740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neuroimage.2016.10.050 . EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 381 Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 , 163 –175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00 . Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind ’?Cognition, 21 ,37 –46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 . *Barr, J. J. (2011). The relationship between teachers ’empathy and perceptions of school culture. Educational Studies ,37,365 –369. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.506342 . Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 ,52 –77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52 . Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 ,413 –426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.413 . Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 ,751 –758. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167297237008 . Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E. L., et al. (2003). “… As you would have them do unto you ”: does imagining yourself in the other ’s place stimulate moral action? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 ,1190 –1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254600 . *Beussink, C. N., Hackney, A. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2017). The effects of perspective taking on empathy-related responses for college students higher in callous traits. Personality and Individual Differences ,11 9 ,86 –91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.005 . Bilz, L. (2014). Are symptoms of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents overlooked in schools? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 28 ,57 –62. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000118 . Bloom, P., & German, T. P. (2000). Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition, 77 ,B25 –B31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00096-2 . *Böffel, C., & Müsseler, J. (2018). Perceived ownership of avatars influences visual perspective taking. Frontiers in Psychology ,9.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00743 . Borkenau, P., & Tandler, N. (2015). Personality, trait models of. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 17, 2nd ed., pp. 920 –924). Oxford: Elsevier. *Bostic, T. B. (2014). Teacher empathy and its relationship to the standardized test scores of diverse secondary English students. Journal of Research in Education ,24,3–16. Brown, G. (1986). Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: birth to adulthood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56 ,220 –222 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb02666.x/abstract . Retrieved on December 3, 2019 *Buffone, A. E. K., Poulin, M., DeLury, S., Ministero, L., Morrisson, C., & Scalco, M. (2017). Don ’twalkinher shoes! Different forms of perspective taking affect stress physiology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,72,161 –168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.001 . Bukowski, H. B., & Samson, D. (2015). Can emotions affect level 1 visual perspective-taking? Cognitive Neuroscience, 7 ,182 –191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1043879 . Burka, A. A., & Glenwick, D. S. (1978). Egocentrism and classroom adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6 ,61 –70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00915782 . *Chambers, J. R., & Davis, M. H. (2012). The role of the self in perspective taking and empathy: ease of self- simulation as a heuristic for inferring empathic feelings. Social Cognition, 30 , 153 –180. https://doi. org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.2.153 . Chandler, M. J. (1973). The picture arrangement subtest of the WAIS as an index of social egocentrism: a comparative study of normal and emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1 , 340 –349. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00917632 . *Church, B. K., Peytcheva, M., Yu, W., & Singtokul, O.-A. (2015). Perspective taking in auditor-manager interactions: an experimental investigation of auditor behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society ,45, 40 –51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.07.001 . Converse, B. A., Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2008). In the mood to get over yourself: mood affects theory- of-mind use. Emotion, 8 ,725 –730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013282 . Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10 ,85 –94 https://www.uv.es/friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf .Retrievedon December 3, 2019 Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multi-dimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 ,113 –126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 . Davis, M. H. (2018). Empathy: a social psychological approach . Routledge. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 382 De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. H. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47 , 235 –260. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-47-4-235 . *Deliens, G., Bukowski, H., Slama, H., Surtees, A., Cleeremans, A., Samson, D., & Peigneux, P. (2018). The impact of sleep deprivation on visual perspective taking. Journal of Sleep Research ,27,175 –183. https://doi. org/10.1111/jsr.12595 . Derksen, D. G., Hunsche, M. C., Giroux, M. E., Connolly, D. A., & Bernstein, D. M. (2018). A systematic review of theory of mind ’s precursors and functions across the lifespan. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226 ,87– 97 .https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000325 . *Deroualle, D., Borel, L., Devèze, A., & Lopez, C. (2015). Changing perspective: the role of vestibular signals. Neuropsychologia ,79,175 –185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.022 . *Diehl, C., Glaser, T., & Bohner, G. (2014). Face the consequences: learning about victim ’s suffering reduces sexual harassment myth acceptance and men ’s likelihood to sexually harass. Aggressive Behavior ,40,489 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21553 . *Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Woelker, L. R., & Cooney, M. A. (2014). The role of social perspective-taking in developing students ’leadership capacities. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice ,51,1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0001 . *Dugan, J. P., Turman, N. T., & Torrez, M. A. (2015). When recreation is more than just sport: advancing the leadership development of students in intramurals and club sports. Recreational Sports Journal ,39,37 –48. https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.2015-0008 . *Duran, N. D., & Dale, R. (2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32 ,131 –146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.004 . *Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other ’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition ,121 ,22 –40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.009 . Dziobek, I., Rogers, K., Fleck, S., Bahnemann, M., Heekeren, H. R., Wolf, O. T., & Convit, A. (2008). Dissociation of cognitive and emotional empathy in adults with Asperger syndrome using the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38 , 464 –473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0486-x . *Edwards, R., Bybee, B. T., Frost, J. K., Harvey, A. J., & Navarro, M. (2017). That ’s not what I meant: how misunderstanding is related to channel and perspective-taking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 36 ,188 –210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16662968 . Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94 ,100 –131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100 . *Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2012). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology ,23, 275 –282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.003 . *Engert, V., Plessow, F., Miller, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Singer, T. (2014). Cortisol increase in empathic stress is modulated by emotional closeness and observation modality. Psychoneuroendocrinology ,45,192 –201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.04.005 . Epley, N., Keysar, B., van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 ,327 –339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.87.3.327 . Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 , 872 –889 [no doi available]. *Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2015). Spatial and empathic perspective-taking correlate on a self-reported level. Social Cognition ,33, 187 –210. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2015.33.3.187 . *Erle, T. M., & Topolinski, S. (2017). The grounded nature of psychological perspective-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,11 2 ,683 –695. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000081 . Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114 ,547 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115 . Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: the control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87 ,477 –531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477 . Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: the challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 ,83 –87. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x . Ford, M. E. (1979). The construct validity of egocentrism. Psychological Bulletin, 86 , 1169 –1188. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1169 . Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 708 –724. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708 . EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 383 Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 , 657 –669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.81.4.657 . Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking: fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8 ,109 –125. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1368430205051060 . Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19 ,378 –384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x . Gehlbach, H. (2004). A new perspective on perspective taking: a multidimensional approach to conceptualizing an aptitude. Educational Psychology Review, 16 ,207 –234. https://doi.org/10.1023 /B:EDPR.0000034021.12899.11 . Gehlbach,H.,Brown,S.W.,Ioannou,A.,Boyer,M.A.,Hudson,N.,Niv-Solomon,A.,…Janik,L.(2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and selfefficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894 –914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002 *Gehlbach, H. (2010). The social side of school: why teachers need social psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 22 ,349 –362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9138-3 . *Gehlbach, H. (2011). Making social studies social: engaging students through different forms of social perspective taking. Theory Into Practice, 50 ,311 –318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607394 . Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2012). The social perspective taking process: strategies and sources of evidence in taking another ’s perspective. Teachers College Record, 114 , 226 –254 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:HUL.InstRepos:11393842 . Retrieved on December 3, 2019 Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2018). Mitigating illusory results through preregistration in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11 , 296 –315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1387950 . Gehlbach, H., & Vriesema, C. C. (2019). Meta-bias: a practical theory of motivated thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 31 ,65 –85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9454-6 . Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Wang, M.-T. (2012a). The social perspective taking process: what motivates individuals to take another ’s perspective? Teachers College Record, 114 ,197 –225 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn- 3:HUL.InstRepos:11393841 . Retrieved on December 3, 2019 *Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2012b). Changes in teacher –student relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 82,690 –704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02058.x . *Gehlbach, H., Young, L. V., & Roan, L. K. (2012c). Teaching social perspective taking: how educators might learn from the Army. Educational Psychology, 32 ,295 –309. https://doi.org/10.1080 /01443410.2011.652807 . *Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A. M., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another ’s moccasins: type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior ,52,523 –532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.035 . Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., King, A. M., Hsu, L. M., McIntyre, J., & Rogers, T. (2016). Creating birds of similar feathers: leveraging similarity to improve teacher –student relationships and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 , 342 –352. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000042 . German, T. P., & Hehman, J. A. (2006). Representational and executive selection resources in ‘theory of mind ’: evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition, 101 ,129 –152. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.006 . *Gilin, D., Maddux, W. W., Carpenter, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). When to use your head and when to use your heart: the differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,39,3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212465320 . *Gorgas, D. L., Greenberger, S., Bahner, D. P., & Way, D. P. (2015). Teaching emotional intelligence: a control group study of a brief educational intervention for emergency medicine residents. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine ,16,899 –906. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.8.27304 . Hass, R. G. (1984). Perspective taking and self-awareness: drawing an E on your forehead. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 788 –798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.788 . Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., van der Graaff, J., de Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Examining the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95 ,96 –106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.696080 . Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32 ,175 –191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001 . *Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Moving narcissus: can narcissists be empathic? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin ,40, 1079 –1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214535812 . EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 384 *Ingraham, C. L. (2017). Educating consultants for multicultural practice of consultee-centered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation ,27,72 –95. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10474412.2016.1174936 . Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131 (4), 285 –358. *Kajonius, P. J., & Dåderman, A. M. (2017). Conceptualizations of personality disorders with the five factor model-count and empathy traits. International Journal of Testing ,17,141 –157. https://doi.org/10.1080 /15305058.2017.1279164 . Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1 , 213. https://doi.org/10.3389 /fpsyg.2010.00213 . Kessler, K., & Thomson, L. A. (2010). The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: embodied transfor- mation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition, 114 ,72 –88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2009.08.015 . Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 23 , 165 –208. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1006 . *Knowles, M. L. (2014). Social rejection increases perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ,55,126 –132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.008 . *Konrath, S., O’Brien, E., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in self-reported empathy in American college students over time: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15 , 180 –198. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1088868310377395 . *Kordts-Freudinger, R. (2017). Feel, think, teach —emotional underpinnings of approaches to teaching in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education ,6,217 –229. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n1p217 . Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective- taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (1), 42 –58. https://doi.org/10.1162 /jocn.2007.19.1.42 . *Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage ,54, 2492 –2502. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014 . Leibetseder, M., Laireiter, A., Riepler, A., & Köller, T. (2001). E-Skala: Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Empathie —Beschreibung und psychometrische Eigenschaften. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 22 ,70 –85. https://doi.org/10.1024//0170-1789.22.1.70 . Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 ,171 –193. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2881 . Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Toward a theory of social cognition: the development of self. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 4 ,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219790403 . *Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2011). Visual perspective in mental imagery. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: v.44. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1sted., Vol. 44, pp. 185 –245). s.l.: Elsevier textbooks. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00004-4 . Lietz, C. A., Gerdes, K. E., Sun, F., Geiger, J. M., Wagaman, M. A., & Segal, E. A. (2011). The Empathy Assessment Index (EAI): a confirmatory factor analysis of a multidimensional model of empathy. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2 , 104 –124. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2011.6 . Light, P. (1983). Piaget and egocentrism: a perspective on recent developmental research. Early Child Development and Care, 12 ,7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443830120102 . Lillard, A. (1998). Ethopsychologies: cultural variations in theories of mind? Psychological Bulletin, 123 ,3–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.3 . Mattan, B. D., Quinn, K. A., Apperly, I. A., Sui, J., & Rotshtein, P. (2015). Is it always me first? Effects of self- tagging on third-person perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 ,1,100 –1,117. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000078 . *Mattan, B. D., Rotshtein, P., & Quinn, K. A. (2016). Empathy and visual perspective-taking performance. Cognitive Neuroscience ,7,170 –181. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1085372 . Mead,G.H.(1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. *Meyer, M. L., & Lieberman, M. D. (2016). Social working memory training improves perspective-taking accuracy. Social Psycholog ical and Personality Science ,7,381 –389. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1948550615624143 . Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Development, 2 , 622 –646. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x . EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 385 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6 (7), e1000097. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 . Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 ,1–9.https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 . *Mohr, C., Rowe, A. C., & Blanke, O. (2010). The influence of sex and empathy on putting oneself in the shoes of others. British Journal of Psychology ,101 ,277 –291. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X457450 . *Mohr, C., Rowe, A. C., Kurokawa, I., Dendy, L., & Theodoridou, A. (2013). Bodily perspective taking goes social: the role of personal, interpersonal, and intercultural factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology ,43, 1,369 –1,381. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12093 . *Mooradian, T. A., Davis, M. H., & Matzler, K. (2011). Self-reported empathy and the hierarchical structure of personality. The American Journal of Psychology ,124 ,99 –109. https://doi.org/10.5406 /amerjpsyc.124.1.0099 . *Morey, J. T., & Dansereau, D. F. (2010). Decision-making strategies for college students. JournalofCollege Counseling ,13,155 –168. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2010.tb00056.x . Morss, J. R. (1987). The construction of perspectives: Piaget ’s alternative to spatial egocentrism. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10 ,263 –279. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548701000301 . *Nielsen, M. K., Slade, L., Levy, J. P., & Holmes, A. (2015). Inclined to see it your way: do altercentric intrusion effects in visual perspective taking reflect an intrinsically social process? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology ,68, 1931 –1951. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1023206 . *O ’Brien, E., Konrath, S. H., Grühn, D., & Hagen, A. L. (2013). Empathic concern and perspective taking: linear and quadratic effects of age across the adult life span. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences ,68,168 –175. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs055 . Pasch, L. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Social support, conflict, and the development of marital dysfunction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 ,219 –230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.219 . Paulus, C. (2009). Der Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen SPF (IRI) zur Messung von Empathie: Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Interpersonal Reactivity Index. http://psydok.sulb. uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2363/pdf/SPF_Artikel.pdf . Retrieved on December 3, 2019 *Pavey,L.,Greitemeyer,T.,&Sparks,P.(2012). “I help because I want to, not because you tell me to ”:empathy increases autonomously motivated helping. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin ,38, 681 –689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211435940 . *Pfeifer, J. H., Masten, C. L., Borofsky, L. A., Dapretto, M., Fuligni, A. J., & Lieberman, M. D. (2009). Neural correlates of direct and reflected self-appraisals in adolescents and adults: when social perspective-taking informs self-perception. Child Development ,80,1,016 –1,038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2009.01314.x . Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, p. 18) . New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child ’s conception of space . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. (2013). From glue to gasoline: how competition turns perspective takers unethical. Psychological Science, 24 , 1986 –1994. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0956797613482144 . Rao, P. A., Beidel, D. C., & Murray, M. J. (first online 2007; 2008). Social skills interventions for children with Asperger ’s syndrome or high-functioning autism: a review and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38 ,353 –361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0402-4 . Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93 ,84 –95. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00223891.2010.528484 . Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143 ,117 –141. https://doi.org/10.1037 /bul0000088 . Rosset, E. (2008). It ’s no accident: our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition, 108 ,771 –780. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001 . Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2003). What you believe versus what you think they believe: a neuroimaging study of conceptual perspective ‐taking. European Journal of Neuroscience , 17(11), 2475-2480. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02673.x Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 36, 1, 255 –1,266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729 EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 386 *Santiesteban, I., Kaur, S., Bird, G., & Catmur, C. (2017). Attentional processes, not implicit mentalizing, mediate performance in a perspective-taking task: evidence from stimulation of the temporoparietal junction. NeuroImage ,155 , 305 –311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.055 . *Sassenrath, C., Sassenberg, K., & Scholl, A. (2014). From a distance …: the impact of approach and avoidance motivational orientation on perspective taking. Social Psychological and Personality Science ,5,18 –26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613486672 . Sassenrath, C., Hodges, S. D., & Pfattheicher, S. (2016). It ’s all about the self: When perspective taking backfires. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 405-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416659253 Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P., & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 19(2),65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.007 Schneider, D., Bayliss, A. P., Becker, S. I., & Dux, P. E. (2012). Eye movements reveal sustained implicit processing of others ’mental states. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 14 , 433 –438. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0025458 . Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47 ,1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016 /0010-0277(93)90060-9 . *Seinfeld, S., Arroyo-Palacios, J., Iruretagoyena, G., Hortensius, R., Zapata, L. E., Borland, D., de Gelder, B., Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2018). Offenders become the victim in virtual reality: impact of changing perspective in domestic violence. Scientific Reports ,8,2692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018- 19987-7 . Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding —developmental and clinical analyses .New York: Academic Press. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal, 349 , g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 . Simpson, A. J., & Todd, A. R. (2017). Intergroup visual perspective-taking: shared group membership impairs selfperspective inhibition but may facilitate perspective calculation. Cognition, 166 ,371 –381. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.003 . Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 ,855 –863. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011 . *Slavny, R. J. M., & Moore, J. W. (2018). Individual differences in the intentionality bias and its association with cognitive empathy. Personality and Individual Differences ,122 , 104 –108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2017.10.010 . *Sollberger, M., Rosen, H. J., Shany-Ur, T., Ullah, J., Stanley, C. M., Laluz, V., Weiner, M. W., Wilson, S. M., Miller, B. L., & Rankin, K. P. (2014). Neural substrates of socioemotional self-awareness in neurodegen- erative disease. Brain and Behavior ,4,201 –214. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.211 . Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1984). The contagion of self-focus within a dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 ,163 –168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.163 . Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 ,437 –446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.73.3.437 . *Surtees, A., Apperly, I., & Samson, D. (2016). I ’ve got your number: spontaneous perspective-taking in an interactive task. Cognition ,150 ,43 –52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.014 . *Swartz, R. A., & McElwain, N. L. (2012). Preservice teachers ’emotion-related regulation and cognition: associations with teachers ’responses to children ’semotionsinearlychildhoodclassrooms. Early Education & Development ,23, 202 –226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.619392 . Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 ,151 –162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028232 . Tavakol, M., Dennick, R., & Tavakol, S. (2011). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy. BMC Medical Education, 11 ,1–8.https://doi.org/10.1186/1472- 6920-11-54 . *Theodoridou, A., Rowe, A. C., & Mohr, C. (2013). Men perform comparably to women in a perspective taking task after administration of intranasal oxytocin but not after placebo. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience ,7, 1 –11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00197 . *Thoma, P., Zalewski, I., von Reventlow, H. G., Norra, C., Juckel, G., & Daum, I. (2011). Cognitive and affective empathy in depression linked to executive control. Psychiatry Research ,189 ,373 –378. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.07.030 . Todd, A. R., Hanko, K., Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2011). When focusing on differences leads to similar perspectives. Psychological Science., 22 , 134 –141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392929 . EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 387 Todd, A. R., Forstmann, M., Burgmer, P., Brooks, A. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Anxious and egocentric: how specific emotions influence perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 , 374 –991. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000048 . *Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: when putting oneself into the opponent ’sshoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,101 , 771 –790. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0023801 . Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91 , 143 –173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.143 . *van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Crone, E. A. (2011). Changing brains, changing perspectives: the neurocognitive development of reciprocity. Psychological Science ,22, 60 –70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391102 . *van Lissa, C. J., Hawk, S. T., de Wied, M., Koot, H. M., van Lier, P., & Meeus, W. (2014). The longitudinal interplay of affective and cognitive empathy within and between adolescents and mothers. Developmental Psychology ,50,1,219 –1,225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035050 . Van Lissa, C. J., Hawk, S. T., & Meeus, W. H. (2017). The effects of affective and cognitive empathy on adolescents ’behavior and outcomes in conflicts with mothers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.002 *van Ryn, M., Hardeman, R. R., Phelan, S. M., Burke, S. E., Przedworski, J., Allen, M. L. et al. (2014). Psychosocial predictors of attitudes toward physician empathy in clinical encounters among 4732 1st yearmedical students: a report from the CHANGES study. Patient Education and Counseling ,96, 367 –375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.009 . *Verhofstadt, L., Devoldre, I., Buysse, A., Stevens, M., Hinnekens, C., Ickes, W., & Davis, M. H. (2016). The role of cognitive and affective empathy in spouses ’support interactions: an observational study. PLoS ONE , 11 ,1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149944 . *Wald, D. M., Segal, E. A., Johnston, E. W., & Vinze, A. (2017). Understanding the influence of power and empathic perspective-taking on collaborative natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management ,199 , 201 –210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.030 . *Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education ,69,169 –183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487 . Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138 , 775 –808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600 . Wilkinson, H., Whittington, R., Perry, L., & Eames, C. (2017). Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Burnout Research, 6 ,18 –29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.06.003 . *Wilson, C. J., Soranzo, A., & Bertamini, M. (2017). Attentional interference is modulated by salience not sentience. Acta Psychologica ,178 ,56 –65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.010 . Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children ’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13 , 103 –128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277 (83)90004-5 . Hay Group, McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, & Wolff, S. B. (2005).The emotional competence inventory (ECI) technical manual. Retrieved on December 3, 2019 from: http://www.eiconsortium. org/pdf/ECI_2_0_Technical_Manual_v2.pdf . Wolgast, A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Social perspective taking and metacognition of children. A longitu- dinal view across the fifth grade of school. The Humanistic Psychologist, 46 ,74 –90 http://psycnet.apa. org/record/2017-51594-001Wolgast . Wolgast, A., & Fischer, N. (2017). You are not alone. Colleague support and goal-oriented cooperation as resources to reduce teachers ’stress. Social Psychology of Education, 20 ,97 –114. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11218-017-9366-1 . Wolgast, A., & Oyserman, D. (2019). Seeing what other people see: Accessible cultural mindset affects perspective-taking. Culture and Brain . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40167-019- 00083-0 . *Yuan, X., Wang, N., Geng, H., & Zhang, S. (2017). Mentalizing another ’svisualworld —a novel exploration via motion aftereffect. Frontiers in Psychology ,8,1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01535 . *Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140 ,1608 –1647. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0037679 . Publisher ’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 388 Affiliations Anett Wolgast 1&Nancy Tandler 2&Laura Harrison 3&Sören Umlauft 1 1 Department of Educational Psychology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Franckepl. 1, 06110 Halle (Saale), Germany 2 Department of Differential Psychology and Psychological Diagnostics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany 3 Brain and Creativity Institute, Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Universityof Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA EducationalPsychologyReview(2020)32:353–389 389
Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about: The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable) and “using an answer key is ac
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Gender … Whitley, Bernard E., Jr.;Nelson, Amanda Bichlmeier;Jones, Curtis J. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research; Nov 1999; 41, 9-10; APA PsycInfo® pg. 657 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about: The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable) and “using an answer key is ac
15 CHEATING AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Student University Affiliation Cheaters and Non-Cheaters’ Feelings Throughout Assessment: Perspective Taking Perspective-taking can be altered depending on where a person stands within a situation (Best & Shelly 2018). Just because one person feels or acts a certain way towards a situation, doesn’t mean all parties involved will feel and think the same way. One topic that may have various perspectives would be cheating; it comes in all forms, whether it’s physical or emotional. In recent years, more and more cases of academic dishonesty are now of the digital/cyber formats (Best & Shelly 2018). Academic dishonesty, particularly cheating, remains a persistent concern in educational environments. Understanding the factors that impact individuals’ attitudes towards cheating and their affective reactions during evaluation is important for effectively addressing this matter. This paper reviews studies on perspective-taking and its impact on attitudes towards cheating, the use of self-knowledge in social inference, personality traits related to cheating behavior, and the influence of self-awareness on ethical judgments. Mobile apps for social media influences academic dishonesty universally. It’s indicated that students often use social media for school-related activities but rarely use them to cheat (Best & Shelley, 2018). Specific programs, including messaging, taking screenshots, and audio recording, are more likely to be used for deceiving purposes. Even though most students see cheating as bad and may express disapproval for it, they are unlikely to intervene or prevent it within their classrooms (Xie et al., 2022). These results demonstrate how social media may encourage students to engage in different and complex forms of academic dishonesty. Apart from how influential social media may be, there is a link between inner personal flaws and cheating that finds impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to perceive things from others’ points of view major indicators of dishonest behavior. These findings state that features within personality play a fundamental role in shaping moral judgment (McTernan et al., 2014). Factors like impulsivity and empathy can play a role in mediating the choice to cheat, highlighting the importance of individual variability in moral judgement. Research also shows that impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and the ability to take the viewpoint of others are all linked to engaging in dishonest activities more often. These results highlight the importance of context in decision-making and provide insight into the possible mediation roles of empathy and impulsivity in the choice to cheat. Identifying oneself within social inferences demonstrates the flow of thought process within different perceptions. The flexible self-application hypothesis, states that the way in which one person’s self-knowledge applies to another varies depending on how similar the perspective taker and the target individual are. When people take others’ perspectives, they are more likely to project their own features and preferences onto others who are different from them while doing the opposite for those who are more like themselves; self-target similarity influences perspective-taking inferences (Todd et al., 2016). Perspective-taking improves interpersonal understanding by analyzing its effectiveness in anticipating the ideas and mental states of others (Eyal et al., 2018). Predicting emotions, identifying false grins, spotting liars, learning activity preferences, and gauging others’ feelings were all tested in trials which show that changing one’s viewpoint does not always lead to the greater good and may even have the opposite effect. Having a discussion with the person may help better understand their point of view than just reading about it. In conclusion, the reviewed journals provide a distinctive understanding of cheaters and non-cheaters’ possible feelings and reasonings, particularly in relation to perspective-taking. The findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences, such as personality traits and self-target similarity, in shaping individuals’ perspectives and behaviors. Furthermore, the influence of social factors, including moral self-awareness and technology, adds complexity to understanding academic dishonesty. Future research can expand on these insights to develop interventions and strategies to encourage academic integrity and ethical decision-making. We have several predictions in this study. Generally, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater, then they will more strongly disagree that using an answer key is cheating than if they take the perspective of a non-cheater, with little to no differences expected between the eager-cheater and hesitant-cheater conditions. Conversely, if participants take the perspective of an eager-cheater or a hesitant-cheater (compared to taking the perspective of a non-cheater), then they should more strongly agree that using an answer key is acceptable if the answers are already easy to find, if the professor does not bother to change the exam, if the exam is extremely difficult, if the person using the answer key is not paying for the answers, and if other students are likely to use the answers. Method Study One Participants The participants in the research ranged in age from 16 to 59 years old, with an average age of M = 26.35 and a standard deviation of SD = 9.65. The contestants represented the university’s age range. 48.3% (n = 69) of the participants were male, 47.6% (n = 68) were female, 0.7% (n = 1) identified as nonbinary, and 1.4% (n = 2) identified as other. In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, 31.5% (n = 45) were white, 43.4% (n = 62) were Latino/a, 2.8% (n = 4) were Indigenous, 11.2% (n = 18) were Black, 4.2% (n = 6) were Asian, 1.4% (n = 2) were MENA, and 4.2% (n = 6) were Other. Materials and Procedure A questionnaire with three variants was utilized in the research to reflect the three viewpoint conditions: Eager-Cheater, Hesitant-Cheater, and Non-Cheater. Participants were allocated to one of these conditions at random. Throughout the evaluation, the questionnaire contained various dependent variables relating to participants’ emotions and perceptions. Likert scale items and categorical answer alternatives were used to examine these factors. The approach started with an oral informed consent process in which participants were educated about the research and their rights as participants. Once permission was obtained, participants were given the questionnaire relating to their allocated viewpoint condition. They were told to study the directions and react to things carefully. The survey measured participants’ attitudes and ideas about cheating and their ability to imagine themselves as WhatsApp users. After completing the questionnaire, participants were given further information regarding the study’s goal and the manipulation of viewpoint circumstances. They were also given the chance to ask questions and get explanations. Results The association between participants’ recollection of their assigned condition and their viewpoint condition was investigated using a chi-square analysis. A significant chi-square value of 2(2) = 157.67, p < 0.001, was found in the findings. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the majority of Eager-Cheater participants (84.8%, n = 39) correctly recognized their assigned condition. Similarly, 73.4% (n = 36) of Hesitant-Cheater participants remembered their condition properly, whereas 87.5% (n = 42) of Non-Cheater participants recognized their condition. This indicated that the majority of participants were paying attention to their allocated viewpoint condition. A one-way ANOVA test was also done to investigate participants’ perspectives on cheating and their capacity to perceive themselves as WhatsApp users depending on their viewpoint condition. The idea that “using an answer key is cheating” was shown to have a significant impact, F(2, 140) = 10.55, p < 0.01. The Eager-Cheater group (M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) varied substantially from the Hesitant-Cheater group (M = 3.65, SD = 1.03) and the Non-Cheater group (M = 4.60, SD = 1.62). Similarly, the agreement with envisioning becoming a WhatsApp user showed a significant impact, F(2, 140) =1 5.12, p < .0. The post hoc test revealed that participants in the eager-cheater group (M = 3.72, SD = 1.58) agreed with accepting the user’s viewpoint much more than those in the hesitant-cheater group (M = 4.59, SD = 1.15) and the non-cheater group (M = 5.06, SD = 0.73). Discussion This research aimed to look at how cheaters and non-cheaters felt throughout an evaluation, with a particular emphasis on perspective-taking. The findings demonstrated the participants’ identification with their assigned circumstances and their perspectives on cheating and seeing themselves as WhatsApp users. Regarding condition identification, the majority of participants (84.8%) and non-cheater (87.5%) groups properly remembered their assigned condition, showing that most participants were attentive throughout the evaluation. However, a somewhat smaller proportion of participants in the hesitant-cheater group (73.4%) correctly recognized their assigned condition. This implies that some individuals in the hesitant-cheater group were less attentive or had difficulties remembering their assigned condition appropriately. The research on cheating perception found substantial variations across the three viewpoint circumstances. The eager-cheater group had a lower average rating (M = 3.43) for the statement “Using an answer key is cheating” than the hesitant-cheater group (M = 3.65) and the non-cheater group (M = 4.60). This shows that the eager-cheater group was more accepting or tolerant of cheating than the other two groups. On the other hand, participants in the non-cheater group had the highest average rating, showing a more heightened sense that utilizing an answer key is really cheating. Furthermore, perceiving and seeing oneself as a WhatsApp user revealed substantial variations across the viewpoint circumstances. The eager-cheater group had a lower average rating (M = 3.72) than the hesitant-cheater group (M = 4.59) and the non-cheater group (M = 5.06). This means that, compared to the other two groups, participants in the eager-cheater group had more trouble or were less ready to put themselves in the shoes of the WhatsApp user. Additionally, our results stand in agreeance with our predictions and give insight into the variations in feelings and perceptions between cheaters and non-cheaters throughout the evaluation. According to the findings, individuals who are more inclined to cheat may have a more tolerant attitude about cheating and may suffer more from perspective-taking. Non-cheaters, on the other hand, have a higher judgment within cheating and a better capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others. These results have significance for understanding the psychological processes involved in dishonest behavior, as well as the need to adopt several perspectives in ethical decision-making. The sample was mainly composed of university students, which may restrict the results’ outreach to other demographics. Future studies might involve a more varied sample to improve the external validity of the findings. Furthermore, the research relied on self-report measures, which are susceptible to response bias. Future research might include more objective measurements or behavioral observations to offer complete knowledge of participants’ moods and actions during the evaluation. In conclusion, this research demonstrates the differences in emotions and attitudes between cheaters and non-cheaters throughout an examination. The findings indicate that cheaters may have a more tolerant attitudes toward cheating and difficulty with perspective-taking than non-cheaters. These results provide light on the psychological mechanisms that underpin dishonest conduct as well as the significance of perspective-taking in ethical decision-making. Study Two ***Influence of gender on perspective taking*** References Best, L. M., & Shelley, D. J. (2018). Academic dishonesty: Does social media allow for increased and more sophisticated levels of student cheating? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(3), 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2018070101 Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 114(4), 547-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115 McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior, 24(1), 53-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.819783 Silfver, M., & Helkama, K. (2007). Empathy, guilt, and gender: A comparison of two measures of guilt. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 239-246. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00578.x Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., & Tamir, D. I. (2016). Active perspective-taking induces flexible use of self-knowledge during social inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1583-1588. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000237 Whitley, B. E., Jr., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Gender differences in cheating attitudes and classroom cheating behavior: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 41(9-10), 657-680. https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018863909149 Wolgast, Tandler, N., Harrison, L., & Umlauft, S. (2020). Adults’ Dispositional and Situational Perspective-Taking: a Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review., 32(2), 353–389. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09507-y Xie, G. X., Chang, H., & Rank-Christman, T. (2022). Contesting dishonesty: When and why perspective-taking decreases ethical tolerance of marketplace deception. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 117-133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04582-6 Appendix A Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 157.685a 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 159.539 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 92.107 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 143 Appendix B Table 2. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of using an answer key is cheating Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 36.744 2 18.372 10.546 .000 Within Groups 243.886 140 1.742 Total 280.629 142 Table 3. Means and standard deviations of ANOVA results for the perception of Easy to imagine being the WhatsApp user Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 43.633 2 21.817 15.122 .000 Within Groups 201.975 140 1.443 Total 245.608 142
Write a literary review on the attached 3 Peered Reviewed Journal Articles about: The Influence of gender on cheating perspective taking (Being the Independent Variable) and “using an answer key is ac
PAPER III LITERATURE REVIEW 0 Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth 35 Points) Student Name University Affiliation Instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review (Worth 35 Points) This paper will cover both study one (including the literature review, methods section, results section, and brief discussion from that study) and the introduction literature review to study two. This paper essentially tells the literature oriented story of your semester long project thus far. Your main job is to justify your study two predictions, and you do that by both showing how study one influenced your choice of variables in study two as well as citing prior research that supports your second independent variable in study two. At the end of the study two literature review section, you will provide your own study two predictions. The good news is that we are continuing with our topic of the study. You wrote a lot on that already, so here you simply add to it, noting in a second “literature review” section how a second independent variable might interact with the manipulation from study one. Here are the components to keep in mind. By now, a lot of this should be familiar to you, so you’ll see a lot of overlap with the instructions and checklists from Paper I and Paper II. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point): Literature Review Study One (3 points) Methods Study One (3 points) Revise your methods from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for methods still apply for this section. Again, revise, revise, revise or risk losing all points in this section Results Study One (3 points) Revise your results from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the results still apply for this section. Do I need to mention revise? Discussion Study One (1 point) Revise your discussion from study one for this section based on feedback we gave you in Paper II. The Paper II instructions for the discussion still apply for this section. One word – revise! Literature Review Study Two (10 points) APA formatting for the first page of your literature review Your study two literature review starts right after the discussion for study one. There is no page break, so have it come right after the discussion on the very next line. APA formatted citations for the literature review Between the literature review for study one and the literature review for study two, you have to have at least 8 references combined. Content-based requirements for your study two literature review Your study two literature review should use your study one results and prior research studies as a jumping off point, once again starting with a broad theme and then narrowing it down – think about the hourglass example your instructors have given you. Now imagine that you have a second hourglass right below the original one. You can start broadly again with information about the new study independent variable, and then once again narrow down as you near your hypotheses for study two. Think about your study two literature review this way: You are writing a sequel to study one, so your new story picks up where that story left off. For example, let’s say your new independent variable is “the effect of warnings on behavior”, with warning versus no warning as the two levels of the new IV. You would talk about research on warnings and how it impacts people. THEN you talk about how warning about Sexuality Priming might impact people. So, step one is to introduce the new concept while step two is to show how the new concept fits in with your new study. At the end of the story, start to lead the reader to the big cliffhanger (your study two hypothesis). By now you have introduced the characters as well as the plot, but then you want to build some anticipation in your reader – you want them to wonder what comes next! The last part of the literature review brings the reader to your study two hypotheses, or that potential twist ending to your story. That is, “Given what we saw in the literature, what happens if we do XYZ?” Thus you build your study to your hypotheses and end on another cliffhanger. The next chapter (Paper IV Methods, Results, and Discussion) focuses on the study that you actually did! In other words, at the end of your study two literature review you should … give a general overview of your research question state your specific predictions / hypotheses given the studies you talked about in the literature review. This should look at both main effects and interactions, so you’ll need to address each IV on its own (main effect for belief perseverance and main effect for your second IV) and the interaction of the two IVs as they work together. Therefore you should have at least three hypotheses!! The literature review for study two must have a minimum of two (2) full pages of text and a maximum of five (5) pages. This time, I’ll let you include the hypotheses within that minimum 2 pages (though it would be very tight to get all of that info in there in such a short lit review section). Citations: I expect the following format (4 points) All in text citations must be correct (correct APA formatting, correct dates, if directly quoted must have page numbers, and uses et al. and & and correctly) References: I expect the following format (5 points): The References section starts on its own page, with the word References centered. Use proper APA format in this section or you will lose points. Appendices: I expect the following format (1 point) Copy and paste from Paper II. This should be an easy point! Just make sure the appendices go AFTER the references page Appendix A: Include your tables for your chi square and the crosstabs Appendix B: Include your tables for your ANOVA Appendix C: Include your tables for your t test (if you completed this) Overall writing quality (4 points) Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers.

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net