ArticleCommunications psychology2025
Network models reveal high-dimensional social inferences in naturalistic settings beyond latent construct models.
Article in Communications psychology, 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.
- Investigating the Structure of Emotion: Tools, Pitfalls and Recommendations.Affective science · 2025Article
- Mapping EEG Metrics to Human Affective and Cognitive Models: An Interdisciplinary Scoping Review from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long-standing research suggests that social inferences are captured by a few latent dimensions (e.g., warmth and competence). Others argue that social inferences are more complex but lack sufficient empirical support. Here, we conducted two pre-registered studies to test the high-dimensional properties of social inferences. To maximize generalizability, we computationally sampled diverse naturalistic videos and recruited U.S. representative participants (Study 1, N = 1598). Participants freely described people in videos using their own words. Cross-validation identified 25 latent dimensions which explained only 15% of the variance in the data. Alternatively, a sparse network model representing the unique correlations between inferences better represented the data. The network models informed the dynamics of naturalistic inferences, revealing how different inferences co-occurred and how they unfolded over time from concrete to abstract (Study 1). The network models also indicated cultural differences in how one inference was related to another between samples (Study 2, Asian N = 651, European N = 792). Together, these findings show that the high-dimensional network approach provides an alternative model for understanding the mental representation of social inferences in naturalistic contexts, which provides new insights into the dynamics and diversities of social inferences beyond the static, universal structure found with traditional low-dimensional latent-construct approaches.
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.