Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

A Day in Their Shoes: Using LLM-Based Perspective-Taking Interactive Fiction to Reduce Stigma Toward Dirty Work

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AI interactive fiction can soften stigma toward 'dirty work' jobs, study claims — role-playing a day as janitor, firefighter, police officer, or caregiver raised understanding and empathy.

desk verdict Honest exploratory study showing LLM-based interactive fiction can increase self-reported understanding of dirty-work occupations, but the evidence does not support the paper's stronger claim of stigma reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05786 v1 pith:PIHFWLYK submitted 2025-05-09 cs.HC cs.CY

Xiangzhe Yuan , Jiajun Wang , Qian Wan , Siying Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords dirtyworkstigmareductionperspective-takinginteractivefictionlargelanguagemodelsempathyoccupationalbiasGPT-4osimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a text-based interactive fiction powered by a large language model can reduce public stigma toward 'dirty work' occupations — janitors, firefighters, police officers, and caregivers — by letting participants live a day in the worker's role. In a study of 100 participants, self-rated understanding of the assigned profession rose significantly from before to after the session, and post-session scores on empathy, personal distress, and perceived closeness to the workers were high. Interviews with 15 participants point to immersion, guided reflection, and emotional resonance as the active ingredients, but they also surface a risk: generated storylines can unintentionally amplify the very stereotypes the intervention targets, for example by foregrounding danger. The finding matters because a scalable, low-cost text intervention could extend perspective-taking and stigma reduction beyond lab settings and support occupational equity for essential but stigmatized workers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an LLM-driven interactive fiction deployed on a commercial chatbot platform with GPT-4o as the base model. The experience has three phases: an introductory guide to the simulated occupation; a branching scenario phase in which the user chooses among suggested options or types free responses and receives real-time consequences that advance the narrative; and a closing summary that recaps the day and poses reflective questions. Scenario design follows the Ease of Self-Simulation heuristic, giving detailed background context so participants can imagine themselves in the role, and draws on Social Cognitive Theory by including scenes of social judgment and family pressure. A co-intervention administered before the session — merging the participant's own photo into an image of the assigned role via AI face-swapping — was meant to deepen immersion. The measurement side rests on a custom ten-item occupation scale given before and after, the Empathy and Personal Distress scales, and the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale, all self-report.

What would settle it

A randomized three-arm trial comparing the LLM-based interactive fiction against a static first-person written narrative of the same occupation and against a no-intervention control, using an established stigma outcome such as social distance, hiring intentions, or an implicit association test. If the static narrative matches the interactive fiction's gains, dynamic interactivity is not the active ingredient; if the control arm also gains, the effect is a measurement artefact; if participants' reluctance to enter the profession rises along with their empathy, the stereotype-amplification risk dominates the intended effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM-based perspective-taking interactive fiction is effective at reducing stigma toward dirty work (its RQ1). Participants who role-played a day as a janitor, firefighter, police officer, or caregiver showed significant pre-to-post gains on a custom ten-item scale covering knowledge of the profession's tasks, stress, risks, and social value, and they reported high empathy, personal distress, and self-other closeness immediately afterward, with no significant differences between the four occupation groups. The qualitative interviews suggest the effect runs through several channels: concrete insight into job responsibilities and environments, appreciation of occupational stress and family conflict, emotional resonance with relatable scenarios, a closing summary that prompts reflection, and a felt sense of professional fulfillment. The authors also report a specific backfire mode: some storylines reinforced existing stereotypes, and greater awareness of danger made one participant more reluctant to see people enter the profession, a tension the paper treats as a design challenge rather than a refutation of the approach.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that the pre-to-post rise on its custom understanding scale, together with high post-only empathy and closeness scores, measures stigma reduction caused by the interactive fiction itself — but with no control group and no direct measure of stigmatizing attitudes, the same numbers could come from demand effects, social desirability, or the simple experience of learning new facts about a job.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The approach offers a scalable, low-cost alternative to VR and other media-based perspective-taking, deliverable through any chatbot interface.
  • Because scenarios are simulated, the method protects the privacy of real workers, including those in sensitive roles like policing.
  • The effect held across four distinct occupations spanning physical and social dirty work, with no significant differences between groups, suggesting the framework transfers without redesign.
  • The same prompt-driven framework could be pointed at other stigmatized or marginalized roles without building new narrative materials from scratch.
  • Effective use requires balancing empathy generation against stereotype reinforcement, since danger-heavy storylines can raise respect while also raising reluctance to enter the profession.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's quantitative evidence is strongest for gains in self-reported understanding and empathy; 'stigma reduction' is an inference from these proxies, and a reader should not treat discriminatory attitudes as measured until a study uses social-distance, hiring-intention, or implicit-association outcomes.
  • A control arm comparing the LLM-IF to a static first-person narrative of the same occupation would isolate whether real-time adaptive interactivity is the active ingredient or whether ordinary perspective-taking content suffices.
  • The firefighter finding implies empathy and stigma reduction can diverge: respect and fear can rise together. A testable extension is to measure whether post-session reluctance to enter the profession is correlated with higher empathy scores.
  • The AI face-swapping step is entangled with the interactive fiction in the current design; a factorial design with and without the face-swap would clarify which component drives the immersion effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an LLM-powered interactive fiction (IF) framework for perspective-taking and reports an experiment (n=100) in which participants were randomly assigned to one of four 'dirty work' occupations (janitors, firefighters, police officers, caregivers). The authors measure pre-post change on a custom 10-item scale, post-intervention empathy, personal distress, and Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS), and conduct 15 semi-structured interviews. They report significant increases in understanding, high empathy and closeness, and qualitative themes of immersion, emotional resonance, and respect. The paper concludes that LLM-based perspective-taking IF reduces occupational stigma toward dirty work, while also acknowledging limitations including stereotype reinforcement and absence of comparison conditions.

Significance. This is a potentially valuable contribution to the growing area of LLM-based prosocial interventions. The interactive fiction framework is novel in allowing dynamic, personalized perspective-taking relative to static video/text interventions, and the authors took the unusual and laudable step of having professional evaluators rate the realism of the scenarios (Appendix A.1). If the causal claim were supported, the approach would be a scalable, accessible tool for mitigating occupational stigma. However, the evidence as presented is not sufficient to support the paper's central claim: the outcome measure does not assess stigma, the design lacks a control arm and baseline empathy/IOS, and qualitative data include explicit reports of stereotype reinforcement. The work is better positioned as a feasibility study of LLM-based IF for increasing understanding and empathy; the present framing overstates what the data can show.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 and Appendix A.3] The central claim that 'LLM-based perspective-taking IF is an effective approach to reducing occupational stigma' is not supported by the measurement instrument. The custom scale in Appendix A.3 contains items about familiarity with tasks, skills, working hours, stress, risks, and perceived social contribution. These capture knowledge and perceived value, not the stigma constructs (negative labeling, stereotyping, social exclusion) defined in §2.1. No item asks about social distance, discomfort, willingness to interact, stereotype endorsement, or discriminatory intention. The pre/post gains therefore demonstrate increased self-rated understanding, not reduced stigma. The authors must either add a validated stigma outcome administered pre/post, or substantially narrow the claim (including the title and RQ1) to 'increased understanding and empathy' and present the work as exploratory.
  2. [§3.2 and Table 4] The post-only measurement of Empathy, Personal Distress, and IOS cannot support any claim of change caused by the intervention. Without baseline scores on these measures or a control/comparison condition, high scores are uninterpretable with respect to the intervention's effect. The lack of any control arm leaves demand effects, repeated-testing familiarity, and the co-administered AI face-swapping step (described in §3.2) as equally plausible explanations for the observed pre-post shifts on the custom scale. Causal language throughout §5.1 and the conclusion should be removed or the design must be supplemented with a control condition.
  3. [§4.3.2 and P1 quote] The qualitative evidence undercuts the stigma-reduction conclusion. Participant P1's statement that the simulation 'might intensify the public's stereotypes' and could make people 'more reluctant to become firefighters' is an explicit path toward increased stigma and avoidance behavior, which the authors themselves interpret as the 'paradox of empathy.' Yet this limitation is relegated to a challenge theme, while §5.1 nonetheless asserts that the method 'demonstrates' stigma reduction. The paper needs to either reconcile this finding with the conclusion (e.g., by restricting the claim to attitude warmth without behavioral avoidance) or provide evidence that stereotype reinforcement is outweighed by other components.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] In the first paragraph of Section 5, 'the mechanisms through which this approach operation' should read 'operates'.
  2. [Appendix A.3] The response anchors (1=Not at all familiar, 7=Extremely familiar) are not appropriate for the 'Perceived Value of the Profession' items, which ask for evaluation rather than familiarity; use consistent Likert anchors or separate instructions.
  3. [Table 9] Table 9 would benefit from reporting adjusted p-values and confidence intervals consistently; several rows only report P with no effect size, and it is unclear whether the values are already Bonferroni-adjusted.
  4. [Section 4.2] The qualitative coding section does not report inter-coder reliability or an audit trail; please add a statement on coding reliability.
  5. [Section 3.2] Eligibility required English proficiency while all participants were native Chinese speakers; clarify the reason for this requirement and how the interviews in Chinese were verified against translated responses.
  6. [Section 3.2] The Beliefs about Empathy scale is referenced but not described or cited with validation information; please provide the items or a citation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The custom 'Occupation Stigma Scale' operationalizes knowledge the intervention was designed to teach, so the central stigma-reduction claim partially reduces to a knowledge-transmission check.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Appendix A.3, Section 5.1 (RQ1)]
    "Section 3.2: 'we incorporated a custom scale ... This scale was specifically designed to measure participants' prior knowledge and perceptions of the particular dirty work profession they were about to experience.' Appendix A.3: 'Custom-Designed Occupation Stigma Scale' items include 'To what extent are you familiar with the main tasks and responsibilities associated with this profession?' and 'How would you evaluate the contribution of this profession to society?' Section 5.1: 'Our findings demonstrate that LLM-based perspective-taking IF is an effective approach to reducing occupational…"

    Section 2.1 defines stigma as a process in which people are 'negatively labeled, stereotyped, and marginalized through mechanisms such as labeling, stereotyping, and social exclusion,' but the custom scale's ten items ask only about familiarity with tasks/skills/environment, stress/risk knowledge, and perceived social contribution. These are precisely the contents the IF was built to transmit (Section 3.1 helps 'participants better understand dirty workers' via simulated responsibilities, pressures, and family conflicts). The only pre/post quantitative outcome is therefore a knowledge-transmission check, and Section 5.1's 'reducing occupational stigma' conclusion equates gains on that check with stigma reduction.

full rationale

This is an empirical study, not a formal derivation, so no equation-level circularity exists. The one load-bearing circular step is the operationalization of the outcome. The paper labels Appendix A.3 a 'Custom-Designed Occupation Stigma Scale,' but every item measures knowledge or perceived value, not the stigma construct defined in Section 2.1. Because the intervention was designed to deliver exactly that knowledge, the significant pre/post gains provide evidence of knowledge transmission, not an independent test of stigma reduction. The Empathy, Distress, and IOS scales are validated, but they are post-only and thus cannot support the causal, pre/post claim. The qualitative interviews supply some independent content, yet they also document stereotype reinforcement (P1), which weakens rather than rescues the stigma-reduction conclusion. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The circularity is partial but central: the paper's headline claim that the intervention 'demonstrates' stigma reduction reduces to the fact that participants' knowledge scores rose on items covering the intervention's own teaching content. Score 6 reflects this partial reduction-by-construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric parameters were fitted in this empirical study, so free_parameters is empty. The load-bearing content borrowed or assumed upstream is the dirty-work theory, the empathy-to-stigma causal chain, the validity of the purpose-built scale, the causal attribution of pre-post gains, and the fidelity of GPT-4o content, with only thin external grounding from Table 2 and the cited psychology literature.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) dirty-work taxonomy, with janitors, firefighters, police officers, and caregivers as representative occupations, transfers to the Chinese context.
    Section 2.1 selects the occupations and notes that previous work flags a lack of unified dirty-work classification and little Chinese-context research [86], so the transferability of the taxonomy is load-bearing for stimulus selection.
  • domain assumption Perspective-taking raises empathy, and raised empathy reduces stigma toward a social group.
    Section 2.2 imports this causal chain from cited psychology research [10, 18, 39, 79]; the chain is the theoretical mechanism of the intervention and is not re-tested here.
  • ad hoc to paper The purpose-built 10-item scale in Appendix A.3 validly and sensitively measures stigma-relevant perception.
    No validation, reliability statistic, or pilot data is reported for the scale; its items measure familiarity with tasks, stress, risks, and perceived social contribution rather than attitudinal stigma, stereotypes, or exclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-post gains are caused by the LLM-based IF rather than by demand effects, repeated testing, or the co-administered AI face-swapping step.
    Section 3.2 describes a within-subject pretest-posttest design with no control condition and a study purpose that is transparent to participants; the causal attribution is assumed, not tested.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o scenario content adequately represents the daily reality of the four occupations across all 100 sessions.
    Appendix A.1 reports a realism check by four incumbent workers per occupation with average similarity ratings of 5.25 to 6.25 on a 7-point scale; this thin check plus prompt iteration is the only external grounding, and LLM outputs are stochastic and unarchived.
  • standard math The statistical tests (paired t-tests, ANOVA, Bonferroni-corrected contrasts) meet standard normality and independence assumptions.
    Used throughout Section 4.1; Tables 5-8 report normality only as 'Y' without test statistics, and 16 within-group paired tests are run without a stated multiple-comparison correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Day in Their Shoes: Using LLM-Based Perspective-Taking Interactive Fiction to Reduce Stigma Toward Dirty Work." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIHFWLYK

@misc{pith2026250505786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Day in Their Shoes: Using LLM-Based Perspective-Taking Interactive Fiction to Reduce Stigma Toward Dirty Work},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIHFWLYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05786}
}
read the original abstract

Occupations referred to as "dirty work" often face entrenched social stigma, which adversely affects the mental health of workers in these fields and impedes occupational equity. In this study, we propose a novel Interactive Fiction (IF) framework powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to encourage perspective-taking and reduce biases against these stigmatized yet essential roles. Through an experiment with participants (n = 100) across four such occupations, we observed a significant increase in participants' understanding of these occupations, as well as a high level of empathy and a strong sense of connection to individuals in these roles. Additionally, qualitative interviews with participants (n = 15) revealed that the LLM-based perspective-taking IF enhanced immersion, deepened emotional resonance and empathy toward "dirty work," and allowed participants to experience a sense of professional fulfillment in these occupations. However, participants also highlighted ongoing challenges, such as limited contextual details generated by the LLM and the unintentional reinforcement of existing stereotypes. Overall, our findings underscore that an LLM-based perspective-taking IF framework offers a promising and scalable strategy for mitigating stigma and promoting social equity in marginalized professions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gillian M Abel. 2011. Different stage, different performance: The protective strategy of role play on emotional health in sex work.Social Science & Medicine 72, 7 (2011), 1177–1184

    2011

  2. [2]

    Yehuda Amir. 1969. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations.Psychological bulletin 71, 5 (1969), 319

    1969

  3. [3]

    Arthur Aron, Elaine N Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.Journal of personality and social psychology63, 4 (1992), 596

    1992

  4. [4]

    How can you do it?

    Blake E Ashforth and Glen E Kreiner. 1999. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity.Academy of management Review24, 3 (1999), 413–434

    1999

  5. [5]

    Blake E Ashforth and Glen E Kreiner. 2014. Dirty work and dirtier work: Dif- ferences in countering physical, social, and moral stigma.Management and organization review10, 1 (2014), 81–108

    2014

  6. [6]

    Albert Bandura. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.Annual review of psychology52, 1 (2001), 1–26

    2001

  7. [7]

    Albert Bandura. 2008. Observational learning.The international encyclopedia of communication(2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Shreyas Basavatia, Shivam Ratnakar, and Keerthiram Murugesan. 2023. Complex- world: A large language model-based interactive fiction learning environment for text-based reinforcement learning agents. InInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2023 Workshop on Knowledge-Based Compositional General- ization

    2023

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    C Daniel Batson, Shannon Early, and Giovanni Salvarani. 1997. Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel.Personality and social psychology bulletin23, 7 (1997), 751–758

    1997

  2. [10]

    C Daniel Batson, Marina P Polycarpou, Eddie Harmon-Jones, Heidi J Imhoff, Erin C Mitchener, Lori L Bednar, Tricia R Klein, and Lori Highberger. 1997. Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?Journal of personality...

    1997

  3. [11]

    Emory Stephen Bogardus. 1933. A social distance scale.Sociology & Social Research(1933)

    1933

  4. [12]

    Sharon C Bolton. 2005. Women’s work, dirty work: the gynaecology nurse as ‘other’.Gender, work & organization12, 2 (2005), 169–186

    2005

  5. [13]

    Kim Bosmans, Sarah Mousaid, Nele De Cuyper, Stefan Hardonk, Fred Louckx, and Christophe Vanroelen. 2016. Dirty work, dirty worker? Stigmatisation and coping strategies among domestic workers.Journal of Vocational Behavior92 (2016), 54–67

    2016

  6. [14]

    John R Chambers and Mark H Davis. 2012. The role of the self in perspective- taking and empathy: Ease of self-simulation as a heuristic for inferring empathic feelings.Social cognition30, 2 (2012), 153–180

    2012

  7. [15]

    Tanya L Chartrand and John A Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction.Journal of personality and social psychology76, 6 (1999), 893

    1999

  8. [16]

    Banghao Chen, Zhaofeng Zhang, Nicolas Langrené, and Shengxin Zhu. 2023. Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in Large Language Models: a comprehensive review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14735(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adrienne H Chung and Michael D Slater. 2013. Reducing stigma and out-group distinctions through perspective-taking in narratives.Journal of Communication 63, 5 (2013), 894–911

    2013

  10. [18]

    Alex J Clinton and Robin A Pollini. 2021. Using positive empathy interventions to reduce stigma toward people who inject drugs.Frontiers in Psychology12 (2021), 616729

    2021

  11. [19]

    2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications

    2014

  12. [20]

    Patrick W Corrigan and David L Penn. 1999. Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma.American psychologist54, 9 (1999), 765

    1999

  13. [21]

    Yichao Cui, Yu-Jen Lee, Jack Jamieson, Naomi Yamashita, and Yi-Chieh Lee. 2024. Exploring Effects of Chatbot’s Interpretation and Self-disclosure on Mental Illness Stigma.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–33

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mark H Davis. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.Journal of personality and social psychology44, 1 (1983), 113

    1983

  15. [23]

    Penny Dick. 2005. Dirty work designations: How police officers account for their use of coercive force.Human relations58, 11 (2005), 1363–1390

    2005

  16. [24]

    Ashforth, Glen E

    Blake E. Ashforth, Glen E. Kreiner, Mark A. Clark, and Mel Fugate. 2007. Normal- izing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint.Academy of Management journal50, 1 (2007), 149–174

    2007

  17. [25]

    Robert M Emerson and Melvin Pollner. 1976. Dirty work designations: Their features and consequences in a psychiatric setting.Social Problems23, 3 (1976), 243–254

    1976

  18. [26]

    Nicholas Epley, Eugene M Caruso, and Max H Bazerman. 2006. When perspec- tive taking increases taking: reactive egoism in social interaction.Journal of personality and social psychology91, 5 (2006), 872

    2006

  19. [27]

    Philip Feldman, James R Foulds, and Shimei Pan. 2023. Trapping llm hallucina- tions using tagged context prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06085(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    John H Flavell. 2013. Perspectives on perspective taking. InPiaget’s theory. Psychology Press, 107–139

    2013

  21. [29]

    Simon Flynn and Mark Hardman. 2019. The use of interactive fiction to promote conceptual change in science: a forceful adventure.Science & Education28, 1 (2019), 127–152

    2019

  22. [30]

    Louise Freeman and Martha Guarisco. 2015. The Wonder of empathy: Using Palacio’s novel to teach perspective-taking.The ALAN Review, 43 (1): 56-68.43, 1 (2015), 56–68

    2015

  23. [31]

    Adam D Galinsky and Gillian Ku. 2004. The effects of perspective-taking on prej- udice: The moderating role of self-evaluation.Personality and social psychology bulletin30, 5 (2004), 594–604

    2004

  24. [32]

    Adam D Galinsky, Gillian Ku, and Cynthia S Wang. 2005. Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group processes & intergroup relations8, 2 (2005), 109–124

    2005

  25. [33]

    Adam D Galinsky, William W Maddux, Debra Gilin, and Judith B White. 2008. Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations.Psychological science19, 4 (2008), 378–384

    2008

  26. [34]

    Roberto Gallotta, Graham Todd, Marvin Zammit, Sam Earle, Antonios Liapis, Julian Togelius, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2024. Large language models and games: A survey and roadmap.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18659(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jessica Gasiorek and Amy S Ebesu Hubbard. 2017. Perspectives on perspective- taking in communication research.Review of Communication17, 2 (2017), 87–105

    2017

  28. [36]

    Debra Gilin, William W Maddux, Jordan Carpenter, and Adam D Galinsky. 2013. 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 bulletin39, 1 (2013), 3–16

    2013

  29. [37]

    Louie Giray. 2023. Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: a guide for academic writers.Annals of biomedical engineering51, 12 (2023), 2629–2633

    2023

  30. [38]

    2009.Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity

    Erving Goffman. 2009.Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and schuster

    2009

  31. [39]

    Noah J Goldstein, I Stephanie Vezich, and Jenessa R Shapiro. 2014. Perceived perspective taking: when others walk in our shoes.Journal of personality and social psychology106, 6 (2014), 941

    2014

  32. [40]

    Fernanda Herrera, Jeremy Bailenson, Erika Weisz, Elise Ogle, and Jamil Zaki

  33. [41]

    Stephen P Hinshaw and Dante Cicchetti. 2000. Stigma and mental disorder: Conceptions of illness, public attitudes, personal disclosure, and social policy. Development and psychopathology12, 4 (2000), 555–598

    2000

  34. [42]

    Jeffrey CF Ho and Ryan Ng. 2022. Perspective-taking of non-player charac- ters in prosocial virtual reality games: Effects on closeness, empathy, and game immersion.Behaviour & Information Technology41, 6 (2022), 1185–1198

    2022

  35. [43]

    Junyang Huang. 2024. Generating dynamic and lifelike NPC dialogs in role- playing games using large language model. (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    2017.The sociological eye

    Everett C Hughes. 2017.The sociological eye. Routledge

    2017

  37. [45]

    2024.Retrofitted: Enhancing Immersion in SoloRPGs through Large Language Models

    Matthew Jordan. 2024.Retrofitted: Enhancing Immersion in SoloRPGs through Large Language Models. B.S. thesis. University of Twente

    2024

  38. [46]

    Deborah Kozdras, Denise Marie Haunstetter, and James R King. 2006. Interactive Fiction:‘new literacy’learning opportunities for children.E-Learning and Digital Media3, 4 (2006), 519–533

    2006

  39. [47]

    Louis Kwok, Michal Bravansky, and Lewis D Griffin. 2024. Evaluating cultural adaptability of a large language model via simulation of synthetic personas.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06929(2024). FAccT ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Athens, Greece Yuan et al

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Yi-Chieh Lee, Yichao Cui, Jack Jamieson, Wayne Fu, and Naomi Yamashita. 2023. Exploring effects of chatbot-based social contact on reducing mental illness stigma. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2023

  41. [49]

    Jeanette Lemmergaard and Sara Louise Muhr. 2012. Golfing with a mur- derer—Professional indifference and identity work in a Danish prison.Scandina- vian Journal of Management28, 2 (2012), 185–195

    2012

  42. [50]

    Xuchuan Li, Fei Huang, Jianrong Lv, Zhixiong Xiao, Guolong Li, and Yang Yue

  43. [51]

    Bruce G Link and Jo C Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma.Annual review of Sociology27, 1 (2001), 363–385

    2001

  44. [52]

    2011.Decisions, Decisions: Developing Interactive Fiction for Health Communication

    Gina Rose Londino. 2011.Decisions, Decisions: Developing Interactive Fiction for Health Communication. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh

    2011

  45. [53]

    Aleksandra Luszczynska and Ralf Schwarzer. 2015. Social cognitive theory.Fac Health Sci Publ2015 (2015), 225–251

    2015

  46. [54]

    Jon K Maner, Carol L Luce, Steven L Neuberg, Robert B Cialdini, Stephanie Brown, and Brad J Sagarin. 2002. The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism.Personality and social psychology bulletin 28, 11 (2002), 1601–1610

    2002

  47. [55]

    Joshua D Margolis and Andrew Molinsky. 2008. Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior.Academy of management journal51, 5 (2008), 847–872

    2008

  48. [56]

    Alison Jane Martingano, Sydney H Telaak, Emma M Schopp, Christopher Fort- ney, Alexander P Dolwick, Susan Carnell, Sapna Batheja, and Susan Persky

  49. [57]

    Ggaliwango Marvin, Nakayiza Hellen, Daudi Jjingo, and Joyce Nakatumba- Nabende. 2023. Prompt engineering in large language models. InInternational conference on data intelligence and cognitive informatics. Springer, 387–402

    2023

  50. [58]

    Aurore Meugnot and David Rudrauf. 2024. Navigating Empathy’s Paradoxes: Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives. (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Darja Miscenko and David V Day. 2016. Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology Review6, 3 (2016), 215–247

    2016

  52. [60]

    2005.Twisty little passages: An approach to interactive fiction

    Nick Montfort. 2005.Twisty little passages: An approach to interactive fiction. Mit Press

    2005

  53. [61]

    Anthony J Niesz and Norman N Holland. 1984. Interactive fiction.Critical Inquiry 11, 1 (1984), 110–129

    1984

  54. [62]

    Being a caregiver is the most sincere love you can have

    Osmara Vanessa Osuna. 2017. “Being a caregiver is the most sincere love you can have”: Experienced Caregivers Discuss Dirty Work and Good Care. (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Seth A Green, and Donald P Green. 2019. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated.Behavioural Public Policy3, 2 (2019), 129–158

    2019

  56. [64]

    C Mahony Reategui-Rivera, Aref Smiley, and Joseph Finkelstein. 2025. LLM-Based Chatbot to Reduce Mental Illness Stigma in Healthcare Providers. In2025 IEEE 15th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). IEEE, 00001–00007

    2025

  57. [65]

    Mona Sakr, Carey Jewitt, and Sara Price. 2016. Mobile experiences of historical place: A multimodal analysis of emotional engagement.Journal of the Learning Sciences25, 1 (2016), 51–92

    2016

  58. [66]

    Costanza Scaffidi Abbate, Isabella Giammusso, and Stefano Boca. 2020. The effect of perspective-taking on linguistic intergroup bias.Journal of Language and Social Psychology39, 2 (2020), 183–199

    2020

  59. [67]

    Mauro Lo Schiavo, Barbara Prinari, Ikuko Saito, Kotaro Shoji, and Charles C Benight. 2019. A dynamical systems approach to triadic reciprocal determinism of social cognitive theory.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation159 (2019), 18–38

    2019

  60. [68]

    Karina Schumann, Jamil Zaki, and Carol S Dweck. 2014. Addressing the empathy deficit: beliefs about the malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging.Journal of personality and social psychology107, 3 (2014), 475

    2014

  61. [69]

    Alf Seegert. 2009. Doing there vs. being there: performing presence in interactive fiction.Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds1, 1 (2009), 23–37

    2009

  62. [70]

    Ruth Simpson, Natasha Slutskaya, Patricia Lewis, and Heather Höpfl. 2012. Intro- ducing dirty work, concepts and identities. InDirty work: Concepts and identities. Springer, 1–18

    2012

  63. [71]

    Jonathan A Smith. 2007. Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice.International Journal of Qualitative Studies on health and Well-being2, 1 (2007), 3–11

    2007

  64. [72]

    C Richard Snyder, MaryAnne Lassegard, and Carol E Ford. 1986. Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure.Journal of personality and social psychology51, 2 (1986), 382

    1986

  65. [73]

    Urvashi Soni-Sinha and Charlotte AB Yates. 2013. ‘Dirty work?’Gender, race and the union in industrial cleaning.Gender, Work & Organization20, 6 (2013), 737–751

    2013

  66. [74]

    Andrew Stern. 1998. Interactive fiction: The story is just beginning.IEEE Intelli- gent Systems, November/December(1998), 16–18

    1998

  67. [75]

    Grant Tavinor. 2005. Videogames and interactive fiction.Philosophy and Literature 29, 1 (2005), 24–40

    2005

  68. [76]

    Aleksey Tikhonov. 2024. Zork Reimagined: Interactive Fiction in the Age of AI. (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Tanya L Tompkins, Chloe N Shields, Kimberly M Hillman, and Kadi White

  70. [78]

    Bill Underwood and Bert Moore. 1982. Perspective-taking and altruism.Psycho- logical bulletin91, 1 (1982), 143

    1982

  71. [79]

    Theresa K Vescio, Gretchen B Sechrist, and Matthew P Paolucci. 2003. Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions.European journal of social psychology33, 4 (2003), 455– 472

    2003

  72. [80]

    Jacquie D Vorauer and Tamara A Sucharyna. 2013. Potential negative effects of perspective-taking efforts in the context of close relationships: Increased bias and reduced satisfaction.Journal of personality and social psychology104, 1 (2013), 70

    2013

  73. [81]

    kelly is a warm person, joseph is a role model

    Yixin Wan, George Pu, Jiao Sun, Aparna Garimella, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2023. " kelly is a warm person, joseph is a role model": Gender biases in llm-generated reference letters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09219(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Jing Yi Wang, Nicholas Sukiennik, Tong Li, Weikang Su, Qianyue Hao, Jingbo Xu, Zihan Huang, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. 2024. A Survey on Human-Centric LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14491(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Christian E Waugh and Barbara L Fredrickson. 2006. Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship.The journal of positive psychology1, 2 (2006), 93–106

    2006

  76. [84]

    Weicheng Xing, Tianqing Zhu, Jenny Wang, and Bo Liu. 2024. A Survey on MLLMs in Education: Application and Future Directions.Future Internet(2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Xinhao Xu, Jina Kang, and Lili Yan. 2022. Understanding embodied immersion in technology-enabled embodied learning environments.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning38, 1 (2022), 103–119

    2022

  78. [86]

    Zhang Yan and Li Guiqing. 2017. Dirty work: Conceptualization, measurement and the impact on dirty work practitioners.Foreign Economics & Management 39, 10 (2017), 86–101

    2017

  79. [87]

    Qisen Yang, Zekun Wang, Honghui Chen, Shenzhi Wang, Yifan Pu, Xin Gao, Wenhao Huang, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. 2024. Psychogat: A novel psycholog- ical measurement paradigm through interactive fiction games with llm agents. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Asso...

    2024

  80. [88]

    dirty work

    Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Adrian de Wynter, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Ting Song, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. 2024. LLM as a Mastermind: A Survey of Strategic Reasoning with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01230(2024). A Appendix This appendix provide...

    2024 arXiv

  81. [93]

    Do 1 first, then 3

    Pick up the child, comfort him, and try to continue preparing breakfast at the same time. Please tell me your choice (enter 1/2/3), or describe your own approach!” User:“Do 1 first, then 3. ” LLM:“Understood! You chose to first give the child some snacks to calm him (Option 1)...

  82. [94]

    Do 1 first, then 2

    Ignore the child’s interruptions and continue cooking. Please tell me your choice (enter 1/2/3), or describe your own approach!” User:“Do 1 first, then 2. ” LLM:“You chose to first politely ask the child to leave the kitchen (Option 1), then talk to them about their food prefe...

  83. [2015]

    Reducing stigma toward the transgender community: An evaluation of a humanizing and perspective-taking intervention.Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity2, 1 (2015), 34

    2015

  84. [2018]

    Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking.PloS one13, 10 (2018), e0204494

    2018

  85. [2023]

    Using educational videos and perspective-taking to communicate gene-by- environment interaction concepts about eating behavior: effects on empathy and weight stigma.Journal of nutrition education and behavior55, 1 (2023), 55–67

    2023

  86. [2024]

    Be more real: Travel diary generation using llm agents and individual profiles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18932(2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.