Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40742569›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2025

Prosociality is centred on intentions, not outcomes.

Leon Li, Tindaya Déniz, Louisa Huff, Solveig Jurkat, Manuela Missana, Laura Tietz, Sebastian Grueneisen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Leon LiFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany. leon.inbox@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7289-5101
Tindaya DénizFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Louisa HuffFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Solveig JurkatFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Manuela MissanaFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Laura TietzFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.
Sebastian GrueneisenFaculty of Education, Leipzig University, Marschnerstr. 29a, 04109, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent proposal defines prosociality in terms of intentional behaviour that successfully benefits another. We suggest, however, that prosociality would be better defined more simply in terms of the intention to benefit another, regardless of whether a benefit really occurs, for three reasons: (i) the construct of "benefit" is itself difficult to operationalize, (ii) an intention-based definition is no less conservative than the proposed outcome-based one, and (iii) an outcome-based definition overlooks plausible cases of intended but unsuccessful prosocial actions as well as the psychological consequences of such actions. Amending the working definition of prosociality to be centred on intentions, not outcomes, would make it more useful as a tool for comparative and developmental research.

Indexed as

IntentionSocial BehaviorAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID40742569
PMCPMC12313759

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.