How implicit social information shapes spatial memory of objects
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21532904 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Scila Nunziata (0009-0003-2163-1418, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"), Tina Iachini (0000-0001-8405-8768, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"), Gennaro Ruggiero (0000-0002-3940-6740, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 90 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychological Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0340-0727 • E-ISSN: 1430-2772 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-026-02254-0 |
| PMID | 41733656 |
| OpenAlex | W7131227575 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 92 |
In our environments, we encode surrounding spatial information using egocentric (subject-to-object) and allocentric (object-to-object) reference frames. Spatial encoding, however, occurs in an environment populated by more than just “objects” but also by people, and this social information can have a significant impact on our spatial memory. Here, we investigated how implicit social information influences spatial encoding by designing a study with an explicit spatial task and implicit social cues. Participants performed a task where they memorized triads of geometric objects and provided egocentric and allocentric judgments of relative distance. Each object was positioned in front of pairs of social (virtual humans) and non-social stimuli (lamps and chairs, as control conditions). These stimuli, irrelevant to the spatial task, could be at different proxemic distances (intimate, personal, and social), and with mutual and non-mutual gaze (Facing/Not-Facing), in the case of virtual humans and chairs. A questionnaire assessing empathic disposition was also administered. The overall pattern of results showed that the egocentric processing was facilitated over the allocentric one when the social cues were clear and allowed an easy social categorization. Notably, no such advantage emerged when social categorizations required further processing to understand social relations. The empathic disposition was also associated with the spatial performance. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that even when irrelevant to a task, social information, defined by nonverbal signals (proxemics distance and gaze), implicitly affects the way we represent our surrounding environment. This highlights the intertwined nature of spatial cognition and social processes in everyday life
Gaze · Proxemics · Social cue · Social relation · Spatial analysis · Spatial cognition · Action Observation and Synchronization · Memory and Neural Mechanisms · Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Social Categorization
Speaking
Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction
The eyes have it
Outliers detection and treatment
Social Cognition in Humans
The four elementary forms of sociality
Social perception from visual cues
OpenSesame
Embodied and disembodied cognition
Gaze Perception Triggers Reflexive Visuospatial Orienting
Controlling the False Discovery Rate
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1
Resistance to Affirmative Action
Egocentrism, allocentrism, and Asperger syndrome
A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes
Intergroup behaviour, self‐stereotyping and the salience of social categories
Gaze and eye contact
Applying individuation to conflicting social categories
Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism
Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation
Face scanning and responsiveness to social cues in infant rhesus monkeys
Place recognition and wayfinding
Categories and Concepts
Decoding of inconsistent communications
The Consistency of Gaze Patterns in Social Interaction
Personal space
Personal space
| Highly cited | No |
|---|