Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39644099›Full record

ArticlePersonality & social psychology bulletin2026

Multiple Reputations: Selective Attention to Competence and Character.

Alexandra V T de La Trobe, Gordon D A Brown, Lukasz Walasek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Personality & social psychology bulletin, 2026. 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.

Alexandra V T de La TrobeUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-5496-0097
Gordon D A BrownUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2257-1459
Lukasz WalasekUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7360-0037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reputation is multidimensional, with some traits being more relevant than others in particular contexts. Can people selectively respond to reputational cues relevant to the task at hand? Across three studies, we examined how people weigh cues about helpfulness and competence when forming expectations about strangers' behavior. Using adapted investment games, we varied whether a stranger's helpfulness or competence predicted participants' future payoffs. We found that when helpfulness is task-relevant (Experiments 1 and 2), participants correctly use this cue in investment decisions. When competence matters most (Experiment 3), participants use it as the primary cue. Overall, a high reputation for outcome-irrelevant characteristics did not compensate for a low reputation for the outcome-relevant reputational cue. However, we also find an asymmetric spillover: Decision-makers prefer cooperating with others who are highly competent and highly helpful, regardless of task demands. We discuss our results within the theoretical framework of person perception and theories of reputation.

Indexed as

AttentionSocial PerceptionAdultCuesDecision MakingFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleYoung Adultcompetencehelpfulnessinvestment gameperson perceptionreputation

Identifiers

PMID39644099
PMCPMC12949748

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.