Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39508970›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Not just social networks: How people infer relations from mutual connections.

Claudia G Sehl, Stephanie Denison, Ori Friedman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Claudia G SehlDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. claudia.sehl@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-1139
Stephanie DenisonDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Ori FriedmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People can infer relationships from incomplete information about social networks. We examined whether these inferences depend on domain-specific knowledge about social relationships or instead depend on domain-general statistical reasoning. In five preregistered experiments, participants (total N = 1,424) saw two target entities and their connections to others in social, semisocial, and nonsocial networks. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made similar judgments across social and nonsocial networks: with greater proportion of mutual connections and number of connections, the two entities were judged as more likely to be connected to each other. These findings support the domain-general account. The next experiments provided further support for this account, while also investigating the question of whether people use mutual connections to infer the broader structure of networks. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants were asked whether entities connected to both targets were connected to each other, and judgments were hardly affected by network information. In Experiment 5, participants judged connections were more likely when entities were connected to both targets rather than when they were connected to only one. Overall, the findings support the domain-general account of network inferences and further suggest that participants' inferences primarily concerned target entities and not the broader structure of the network.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsSocial NetworkingSocial PerceptionThinkingAdultFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleYoung AdultDomain-generalInferring relationsNetwork inferencesProportional information

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.