Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41719264›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

What do people want to know about another person? The answer depends on whether that person is an adult or a child.

Matthew I Billet, Ian Hohm, Rachel M Dunn, Marlise K Hofer, Benjamin Sidloski, Mark Schaller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

6 authors.

Matthew I BilletUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5768-574X
Ian HohmUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Rachel M DunnUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Marlise K HoferUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3758-1756
Benjamin SidloskiDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Mark SchallerUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research shows that when seeking information about others, people prioritize information about warmth and competence. In those studies, target persons were adults. How might information-seeking priorities differ when that person is a child? In a pilot study (N = 303), topic modeling of free response data showed that participants expressed relatively less interest in children's (vs. adults') dispositions and greater interest in their temperament, health, and needs. In two subsequent experiments (N's = 241 and 717), participants were presented with adult, infant, or non-infant child target persons and rated their interest in obtaining specific information about them. Participants expressed relatively less interest in children's-especially infants'-warmth and competence, and greater interest in their physical health and curiosity. These results indicate that perceivers' inferential priorities differ when perceiving persons of different ages. Results are interpreted within a functional perspective on social cognition. Future studies might assess the generalizability of these results across social contexts, cultural contexts, and in elderly targets.

Indexed as

Social CognitionSocial PerceptionAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41719264
PMCPMC12923015

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.