Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40894890›Full record

ArticleiScience2025

How do preschoolers and adults ascribe authority?

Sarah Pieper, Sara Weber, Anna Neuwerk, Sarah Tune, Sarah Jessen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2025. 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

5 authors.

Sarah PieperCenter of Brain, Behavior, and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Sara WeberCenter of Brain, Behavior, and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Anna NeuwerkCenter of Brain, Behavior, and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Sarah TuneCenter of Brain, Behavior, and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Sarah JessenCenter of Brain, Behavior, and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining social hierarchies is an essential part of successful social behavior and already children are aware of hierarchical relationships. However, which cues humans use to determine hierarchies is highly variable; it includes behavioral as well as perceptual cues and changes throughout development. To investigate the interplay between different cues, preschoolers and adults participated in a behavioral paradigm comparing the impact of helping behavior (behavioral cue) and body height (perceptual cue) on the attribution of authority. Results revealed a double dissociation: Children did not use helping behavior as an indicator but attributed more authority to taller individuals. In contrast, adults ascribed more authority to a person who refused to help, but did not consider body height. A helping person was generally judged as nicer, suggesting that both, children and adults, interpreted the depicted situations correctly. Hence, our results suggest that children and adults use different information to attribute authority.

Indexed as

Research methodology social sciencesSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID40894890
PMCPMC12396247

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.