ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Not just social networks: How people infer relations from mutual connections.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39508970What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.