Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37035290›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Helpers or halos: examining the evaluative mechanisms underlying selective prosociality.

Kristen A Dunfield, Laina Isler, Xiao Min Chang, Brandon Terrizzi, Jonathan Beier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristen A DunfieldDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Ouest, PY-146, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H4B 1R6.ORCID 0000-0003-3353-6146
Laina IslerDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Ouest, PY-146, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H4B 1R6.
Xiao Min ChangDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Brandon TerrizziDivision of General and Community Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0107-4231
Jonathan BeierIndependent Scholar, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3764-4286

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research examines the proximate evaluative mechanisms underlying prosocial partner choice-based reciprocity. Across four studies we presented 855 university undergraduates (online for course credit) and 76 4- to 6-year-olds (offline at a university laboratory) with vignettes describing prosocial, social and non-social characters, and asked participants about their person preferences in prosocial, social and general contexts. Adults demonstrated sophisticated appraisals, coordinating between relevant trait and contextual cues to make selections. Adults were particularly attentive to prosocial cues in costly conditions, suggesting that they were using dispositional attributions to make their selections. By contrast, children were largely unable to integrate trait and contextual cues in determining their partner preferences, instead displaying valenced preferences for non-social cues, suggesting the use of affective tagging. Together, these studies demonstrate that the mechanisms underlying prosocial, partner choice-based reciprocity are not early emerging and stable but show considerable development over the lifespan.

Indexed as

altruismpartner choiceprosocial behaviourreciprocitysocial cognition

Identifiers

PMID37035290
PMCPMC10073910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.