ArticleScientific reports2025
Individualized models of social judgments and context-dependent representations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Like humans, language models demonstrate face-to-character biases.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Face evaluation: Findings, methods, and challenges.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
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
How individuals view the world is critical to understanding human behavior. Yet, almost all research within perception and judgment has drawn inferences from group-level behavior, with little work focused on understanding how the individual perceives their world. However, for complex judgments (e.g., trustworthiness), most of the meaningful variance is due to factors specific to the individual. Here we showcase a data-driven reverse correlation method for visualizing any perceptually-derived stereotype at the individual level. We show that our method (1) produces photorealistic and reliable results related to a broad range of judgments, (2) produces valid, psychologically-aligned representations of what individuals are imagining "in their mind's eye", and (3) is capable of capturing visual representations sensitive enough to examine context-dependent categories (e.g., a trustworthy individual to babysit your children vs. to fix your car). Across all studies, we highlight the theoretical implications and utility of developing idiosyncratic models of visual perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.